Bashar and the Mounting Pressure

The pressure that the Arabic countries and the international community have exerted on the Syrian regime last week is the precursor of a continuously mounting pressure that will culminate shortly by UN Security Council decision declaring that the regime has committed crimes against humanity and submitting an indictment of its leaders to the International Criminal Court, and thus leading to the regime’s downfall. These developments indicate that Bashar lacks completely the sense of the reality, resilience and shrewdness.

Although I did not agree with the way with which Hafez Assad governed Syria, I found that his survival instinct is better than that his son has. This survival instinct was not possible without having some kind of sense of the reality, resilience and shrewdness. When Salah Jedid was irritating Israel by firing artilleries from the Golan Heights onto the Galilee Valley, which was one of the reasons for 1976 war, Hafez Assad understood that was a dangerous strategy. Hafez Assad stopped these immature acts. When Turkey put >30000 soldiers on the Syrian border in 1998, Hafez Assad did not move any. He did not panic. However, he understood that he should hand over Ojlan. As can be seen from both examples, Hafez Assad had certain sense of the reality, resilience and shrewdness.

On the other hand, Hafez al-Assad showed a deficient vision for Syria. He viewed Syria as a means for his vain glory. He viewed Syria as a regional power not for the sake of Syria and its people, but for the sake of his own self-image. Indeed, he destroyed the Syrian economy and social cohesiveness in order to consolidate his power internally and achieve the image that he conceived for himself externally. What Hafez Assad did not understand was that no regional or international power can be real or persists for long time with getting its strategic depth from the creativity of its individuals, the cohesiveness of its society and the strength of its economy.

Needless to say that Bashar does not only lack all kind of vision, but also all qualities required for survival. Indeed, he has no sense of the reality; he does not know his strengths and weaknesses; he does not know what provokes other people's anger; he does not understand what could be done what could not. He did not understand that his strength was the educated-man image that he tried to bestow upon himself early on in his presidency. Instead, he transformed himself into ruthless ruler persecuting his political opponents and killing his own people, which revolted claiming dignity and freedom. He did not know that killing unarmed demonstrators would bring upon him the indignation of the international community. He did not know that killing people in the month of Ramadan will take all the cover that the Arabic governments has provided to him till now. Further, Bashar has no resilience: once he takes a line of action he is too stiff; he is not able to change or retreat in the right moment; his discourse is always the same; if people do not respond favorably to his words, it means for him that they are the ones who do not understand (not his words are not the right words). When the regime decided to give the Syrian people a lesson by blockading and ransacking Dara’a, the Syrian people did not kneel. Instead of changing this failing policy, Bashar continued to bombard and seize more cities. When he described the demonstrators as infiltrators in his first speech, the Syrian people mocked of that description. Instead of changing that repulsive language, Bashar ended in his third speech by describing the Syrians as microbes.

Indeed, for all the reasons mentioned above, Bashar lacks social intelligence and shrewdness; in other words, he does not understand the signs of the times. Therefore, he interprets wrongly the meaning of the explicit and implicit messages that he receive and the significance of historical events that he experiences, making him, unlike his father, completely deficient of the survival instinct and leading him to utter political and personal failures, thus putting in danger not only his presidency but also his life as a free man and the future of his kids, who do not merit to be named the children of a criminal.

Response to the Call to Hold a Meeting for the Opposition in Damascus

Although your invitation came few months later than it should be, it is still a valid call and worth discussing and acting upon. Your call for an opposition meeting in Damascus appears to be crucial and appealing; however, there are many hurdles that may impede the realization of this call.

First, I understand the reason for which you are calling to hold the meeting in Damascus. Likely, it is because you rightly believe that most of the key opposition figures reside in Syria and they can’t travel outside the country. However, do you think the regime would let you carry out such meeting inside Syria? A close look at the regime’s behavior reveals that the regime is extremely insecure and paranoid.  We saw such paranoia and insecurity with every political move carried out by the opposition, as it happened during the Damascus Spring and after the establishment of “The Damascus Declaration for Democratic Change in Syria”. During the first, when the regime’s “attack dogs” were not able to keep up with the ideas discussed in the forums, the regime closed these forums hastily and unleashed its “dogs” to impugn the nationalistic credentials and physically assaulting the opposition figures. Also, the regime felt that its existence was threatened when “The Damascus Declaration” was established, therefore it responded to it by persecuting its leaders, putting them in prison, restricting their movements, and stripping them from their passports. Hence, the regime was able to paralyze the Damascus Declaration (Frankly, the leaders of the Damascus Declaration” were naïve to think that regime would behave in a different manner). Therefore, I will ask you: Is it realistic to think that the regime would every let the opposition hold a meeting for the in Damascus?!!

Second, taking into consideration the current state of the opposition, do you think a meeting that encompasses the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition would be successful? The Syrian opposition is so fragmented, dispersed and preoccupied by trifling differences. Indeed, the Syrian opposition is deeply divided along its ideological lines. There is nothing wrong about having different opposition groups with distinct ideologies, however it is bad to reject others merely because they hold different believe than us; we call this phenomenon “ideological rigidity” or “ideological intolerance”. In fact, “ideological intolerance” is against the basic understanding human nature and consequently it is against the principles of democracy. Alarmingly, since the Syrian opposition groups are too adamant as regarding to their respective ideologies and do not look at the existence of multitude of belief systems as a natural human phenomenon, they project at their counterparts a label of lack of faithfulness to the nation. Furthermore, this “ideological intolerance” makes me worry not only as regard to the ability of the opposition to unite a common cause, such as fighting the regime in this critical time of the history of Syria, but also about the future country once the regime falls. In my opinion, before inviting the opposition for a general meeting, the opposition need a “mediator” who can exert a “shuttle diplomacy” (I am so sorry to use of Henry Kissinger expressions. Although I dislike his Machiavellian principals and his disrespect for human life, I admire his diplomatic ingenuity) to will work hard to reduce their mutual sensitivity and mistrust. This person should be neutral and have good understanding of politics, the art of diplomacy and human psyche.

Strategies to Fight the Regime

Dear Radwan:

Let me start my present e-mail by analyzing Bouthaina Sha'aban, the president advisor, and Rami Makhlouf's, the president cousin,  statements to the NY times. It seems both of them believed (or maybe still believe) that the uprising is finished; however, this is wrong. What happened today with the expansion of demonstrations to new cities and the increase in the number of demonstrators proved that they were wrong. I think they built their assumption on the premise that by destroying Dara’a they were sending a strong message to all Syrians. However, that backfired inside as well as outside the country. Inside the country, the people seem to be more than ever determined to take this regime out. Outside the country, the regime has lost all legitimacy (as Alain Juppé stated), even among their friends (I mean particularly Turkey). Furthermore, I think they were planning to repeat what they did in Dara’a in other cities (including Homs, Al-Rastan and Banias), but they backed off in the last moment, because they figured out that they would have a big problem with the international community (remember Ardoghan words: Another Hama is not acceptable). Certainly, they are disappointed and frustrated. But, the more they are disappointed and frustrated the faster they will crack up.

Second, in his interview with the NY Times, Rami Makhlouf said “If there is no stability here, there’s no way there will be stability in Israel”. Then he continued “No way, and nobody can guarantee what will happen after, God forbid, anything happens to this regime.” Furthermore, when Anthony Shadid asked if it was a warning or a threat, Makhlouf answered: “I didn’t say war,” and continued “What I’m saying is don’t let us suffer, don’t put a lot of pressure on the president, don’t push Syria to do anything it is not happy to do.” As you see Rami Makhlouf has no connection with the reality, he does not see how big the hole in which his regime is. He is shameless blackmailing the international community with nonsense. Although the regime has lost legitimacy in the eyes of the whole international community, there are people who do still believe in this nonsense and there are others who have certain interests with regime (I will expand on this in a later e-mail). We need all people in the international community to say that regime has lost all legitimacy (what all people think, but some do not clearly say) and has become irrelevant (unfortunately, some do still believe it is). In fact, we should work to convince everybody to declare that this regime is illegitimate and irrelevant. I know it is hard, but we should try it (we can discuss that in a later e-mail).

Third, it is clear from Rami Makhlouf's statements that the decision-making apparatus within the regime is in the hands of few people and restricted to the president and his close relatives (brother, brother in-law and first-degree cousins). In other words, our country is a family-owned property and the Syrian people are merely serfs working in this property. Notably, Rami Makhlouf stated that the final decision is in Bashar’s hands, which means that he is the one that joins them and without him they lose legitimacy. Like a semicircular arch, he is the keystones and they are the support. Without him the regime collapses, and without them he cannot stand. Importantly, Bashar has many weaknesses; not the least of them what her sister Bushra described him with “stupid and nervous”. Further, Rami Makhlouf in his interview said explicitly to the international community “do not put a lot pressure on the president”, which means that Bashar is already very much stressed. Therefore, he should be our main target; we should not miss any opportunity to pressure him further till he breaks down completely. Also, without neglecting that we can hit them one with others (we can discuss that further).

Before proceeding to my next purpose, I should say that I liked very much the interviews with Bouthaina Sha'aban and Rami Makhlouf, because they show to the world how stupid these people are and through these interviews we are able to know how they think.

In order to break Bashar down, the demonstrations should continue and increase. The demonstrators should not miss any opportunity to humiliate him in public verbally (we can discuss that further). Bashar has a personality that is love-seeking and approval-seeking. In one of his speeches to the parliament (the one before the last), when the members of the parliament chanted to him “God, Syria and Bashar; that is all”, he said “And I say: God, Syria and  my people; that is all”. Look how he used the possessive pronoun “my” before the noun “people”. He used that pronoun-noun sequence, because he looks at the Syrian people as his possession; it is the possession that provides him with his immature psychological needs “love and approval”. It is his own property that endows him with his gratifications “adoration and applause”. Over the last 11 years, He increasingly believed that these are signs of real love and true admiration. During the time of his presidency, people around him were inexorably expressing to him "approbation and praise"; thus, he gradually believed that he perpetually merits these feelings and emotions. It is natural and tempting to believe that these adoration and applause are real for somebody who is shallow and does not have critical thinking. We call that in medicine “conditioning”, which means by repeating certain stimuli to people, we influence them to believe and behave in a certain manner. Today, we need to show him the truth; we need to show him that all these applause and adoration were merely a comical play. We need to show him the people’s real feeling; we need to show him the hate and despise that people really have for him. We need to deprive him from the psychological “milk” that he has been feeding on for the last 11 years. That will break the pillars of his idealized self. That will destroy the columns that support of his inner psyche. We need the people to destroy his self-image. We need people to destroy his pictures and the statues of his father with anger and rage; anger and rage are needed, because Bashsar is coward. He will feel threatened; that feeling will push him more to the corner.

Another target that will help us break Bashar up is his wife. When she got married with him, she was 25 years old. She was full of optimism, full of energy and successful. She thought that was coming to a third world country to enlighten the people there, to help them see the light and to guide them to the right path. Also, most likely somebody (her parents) told her that she can do that and it was her lifelong mission. During the last 10 years this image was reinforced in her mind. She thought that she was doing a big favor for this miserable populace. She thought that she was carrying out a big philanthropic expedition. She thought that she was the guardian angel of the poor Syrian people. Those most likely were deep believes in her mind. Of course, she was blind and most likely she still is (two months are not enough to change what ten years deeply seeded delusions, even if she really started to face the reality (however, I doubt she started to face it). She did not know that if the Syrian people are in bad condition, it is because her family in-law contributed largely to this end. She did not know that the machine inside the regime is bigger than her. She did not know that regime was using her simply to embellish its image. She did not know that her family (father and mother) also were profiting from her marriage, and probably they were enthusiastic about it from the beginning to fulfill some of their psychological needs. Accordingly, the president named one of the streets in Hama after her mother (this is a precedent nonsense in the history of humanity, similar to the one that occurred when the Roman emperor Caligula made his horse a senator). Further, to my knowledge, the former Prime Minister is a maternal relative of hers. Most of her father’s awards are coming from meetings that took place in Syria. In addition, I heard that some of the Akhras family are implicated in the regime’s corruption. Thus, we should show her what illusion she was living in. We should show her how people used her. We should break her current psychological underpinnings. We should keep pressuring her till this evil regime goes away.

Finally, we need a military humiliation to Maher. My impression the city of Der al-Zor” will be his Stalingrad. We need the people of Der al-Zor to rise up shortly. We need them to provoke him. If he decides to send his 4th battalion and the republican guards  to Der al zor, it will be the end for these units. He will not have the luxury to transport his tanks by train. Further, It will be summer; the heat will exhaust his soldiers. Most importantly, the people of Der al Zor have strategic depth in the desert and the large extension of their tribes (I can elaborate more on that); he can’t blockade the city. There he will experience military defeat. Aleppo and Damascus won’t rise up in a significant scale before seeing the military machine exhausted and humiliated. I understand them they have their commercial and industrial businesses. Their uprising will be very financially costly for them. They do not have the social support that exists in Dara’a and Der al Zor. However, without Aleppo and Damascus we can’t finish the job. Without them we can’t win.

In a future e-mail, I would like to discuss the possibility of engaging the opposition abroad, because that would be the last nail in the regime’s coffin at the international scene (if you wish, we can discuss that in details in a future e-mail).

These are some preliminary ideas on how we could fight this vicious regime. In order, to win this war, we should have our “virtual command room”. We should have our “strategic map”, construct our “tactical plans” and have different divisions with different functions. We should discuss, consider every option and periodically revise our strategies and tactical plans.

We need to win this war. We need to overcome the evil enemy for the sake of Syrian children’s future. We need to lead the ship to a safe port to console the Syrian women’s souls. We need succeed in this struggle in order for the Syrian men to regain their dignity and honor.

God bless you.

Haytham

This message was sent (on May 13, 2011) to Radwadn Ziadeh via e-mail upon his request requiring some ideas how to fight the regime.

The Syrian Opposition Should Unite to Fight the Regime

Dear all:

Rami Makhlouf’s statements to the NY Times today are a declaration of an open war on the Syrian people. In fact, I was not surprised; this regime is inherently evil. Therefore, the Syrian people’s combat with this regime should be relentless. Regarding this matter, I think I can provide some help. I have some ideas that I can discuss with you. I can lay them out to you.

Furthermore, I think the most important blow (and hopefully the final) to the regime would be to bring the opposition together (at least on the common goal of ousting this nefarious regime). I can help with that, too. I am used in my work to bring people together to do common projects, even if they have different opinions. Furthermore, since I am a new face with no political past and a neutral person as regard the different opposition groups and I have no future political ambitions, maybe I am in a good position to carry out that task. I have some ideas as how to approach this matter that I can share with you, too. I can try that, even if there are deep differences between the different groups. I think this is something that is worthwhile to do at this juncture, at least for the sake of the Syrian people.

I feel the urgency to do something, because I feel that this regime won’t hesitate to literally kill all the Syrian people in order to survive. Indeed, I am particularly sensitive to losses in human lives.

Best regards,

Haytham

This message was sent by e-mail to Dr. Radwan Ziadeh, Dr. Najib Ghadbian and Mr. Ausama Monajid (on May 10, 2011) in order to explore the possibility of unifying the Syrian opposition efforts to fight the nefarious regime.

How Ferocious and Unrelenting the War with the Murderous Regime Should be

Dear Dr. Ziadeh:

First, I would like to thank you for the service that you are delivering for our beloved Syria; what you are doing for the country is significant and highly appreciated.

The regime is vicious, resistant to any repair and extremely insecure. One important thing about highly insecure people (that applies to insecure political systems) is that they can't live with others in normal and respectful relationships. Deep in their mind, they believe that in order to live they should kill all "living" people around them (please refer to the analysis of Hitler personality in "Anatomy of Human Destructiveness"). They want people around them to be either completely subdued (spiritually dead) or physically dead. For this reason, the Syrian people's struggle with the regime is a war of existence.; either the regime demises or the people "die".

Consequently, stepping up the fight to make an overwhelming pressure on the regime to break up is important at this point; here comes to my mind Collin Powell's war strategy of using overwhelming force. I understand the limitations that Syrian people and the Syrian opposition have in their fight with the regime. However, I am trying to describe how ferocious and unrelenting the war with the regime should be in order to be fruitful. Also, exploring all options at any time is another important strategy to follow. Thus, your fight with the regime is a war, for which you need a command committee and a virtual "command room"; I know how difficult that is. I am not trying to put more pressure on you (I know how pressured you already are), but I am aiming through these words to support you morally. Indeed, I am happy to help; at least, I can provide moral help. As I mentioned in my previous e-mail I have no intention to work in politics or return to Syria. However, I feel certain obligation to help in order to do not let the blessed blood that the Syrian people has been shedding  go in vain.

Finally, I would like to thank you as a person for the effort that you have made two weeks ago in the UN Human Right Council to bring the decision condemning the Syrian regime. Indeed, I know the extent of your personal contribution in that matter.
All my sincere feelings and wishes are with the Syrian people in its fight with the regime; in fact, this fight still requires a lot of pain and sacrifices to be won.

God bless you.

Haytham

P.S. This message  was sent via e-mail to Dr. Radwan Ziadeh on May 8, 2011.