With Syria’s government determined to rout the rebels militarily, the rebels determined to conquer the nation through sheer strength of arms, and a good chunk of the international community openly backing, the job of UN Special Envoy to Syria, charged with trying to end the fighting, is one of the toughest jobs imaginable.
Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan couldn’t do it, and after the rebels repudiated a ceasefire he negotiated, he resigned in failure. His replacement hasn’t started the job yet, but has been named as Lakhdar Brahimi, a long time Algerian diplomat.
And he’s already being condemned by both sides. Brahimi stated the obvious in a television interview with France 24, saying that “what we need to do is to stop the civil war and that is not going to be easy.”
The regime is furious at him for terming the civil war a “civil war,” insisting that there is too much foreign meddling to call it that. The rebel Syrian National Council also condemned him, saying his comments disregard the “right of self-determination.”
I met Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi when he was the UN's special envoy to Haiti in 1979-1980. He was an impeccable mild mannered gentleman. I was rather young and cant say I had any political discussions with him. I hope he proves to be an impartial arbitrator. Good luck Mr. Brahimi in all your endeavors.
So the "rebels" are allegedly upset because Brahimi said it's 'too early to say' that Assad "must" 'step-down'…and the Syrian government takes issue with the term "Civil war…
I assume most, or at least a significant segment, of the "Syrian people" actually living in Syria would like Assad to hand the Nation over to the guys running through the streets chanting "Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar , Allahu Akbar…" every five seconds as they fire off AK47s and RPGs at Syrian security forces at the same time some kidnap and execute Syrian media personalities…after all, one can only conclude these people would assume the "security" responsibilities of the Nation in a 'rebel ruled' post-Assad Syria–assuming 'the rebels' even had the bodies, much less the capability and resources, to actually accomplish this (which they do not)?
If not the "freedom fighters", who will be responsible for "security" post-Assad? Will it be the Syrian military and security forces who are currently assigned this responsibility, and are currently fighting and dying on behalf of the Assad regime??? This wouldn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, as these are the same people supposedly, according to 'opposition' that is, 'oppressing the Syrian people'. Even though this would be illogical accepting the 'rebel' narrative', I've heard talk of plans to keep the military and possibly the security structure as is now post-Assad…talk coming from, and possible design of, the "powers that be" in Washington DC… 'if' Assad were to fall of course.
So maybe instead of handing the Nation of Syria over to the "rebels" and/or "opposition" (a group which doesn't seem to function as a cohesive unit, or even have a clear unified objective other than to dismantle the current state of Syria), maybe the "people of Syrian" generally want Assad to hand the Country over to the UN…maybe Hillary Clinton? Perhaps the easiest, and most practical and logical solution would be for Assad to grant oversight of the nation Syria to Israel–as Israel's proximity to Syria would help with the logistics and the benevolent "democracy" of Israel has a proven track record of fine stewardship over the population generally referred to as the "Palestinian people".
Typically when there is a "Civil War" involving "two sides"–the "two sides" can be clearly identified and have identifiable leadership–an organization which doesn't require central planning and coordination by foreign powers outside the Nation–as that would make it a "proxy war" by foreign powers; rather than a genuine "Civil War"….so I tend to agree with the "government's" semantic position here. Even though the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) is often mentioned in the lame-stream, it's not all too clear to me the "FSA" (much less the 'new' "Syrian National Council") is representative of, or even has significant broad and/or direct control over, what is generally referred to as the "opposition"…
What will simply, unambiguously, indicate "victory" by the non-Assad "side" in this 'two sided' "Civil War" described? Has the Assad regime done nothing in the way of "reform"? Has the Regime rejected the very idea of "reform" out of hand? If Assad has done nothing in the way of "reform", can the "other side" be specific and articulate exactly what Assad has not done which they want done? Can they provide a "step by step" 'plan' as to how to get to what 'they' want (other than Assad immediately relinquishing power, which Assad has legitimately acquired under the current system in place, and further commit suicide…of course)–and explain why what "they" want is 'fair' to "the Syrian people" they claim to be fighting to '"liberate". What is in the interest of "self-determination" the so-called "rebels" are clamoring for?
Where are the "hearts and minds" of the "people of Syria"? Do "the people of Syria" matter to the powers 'leading', supporting, and driving the "opposition"? Is the "opposition" synonymous with "the people of Syria"? If so, how has this been determined? Does the Western media even care to investigate these questions seriously, and not simply operate on unfounded "assumptions"? The media doesn't determine the "will" of the "people", or people's thoughts… this is why 'we' have a "ballot box" here in our "democracy"… This is what Assad has , at least in speeches and interviews, publicly called for, and even some 'elections' on the local and parliamentary level have taken place… Is there something wrong with a "ballot box" to determine who the "people" support to rule Syria? If so, why…and who has determined a "ballot box" is insufficient/unacceptable?