The Syrian Massacre

Tunisia. Egypt. Libya. Countries torn apart by revolution, corruption and war. As with many countries in the Middle East, run by regimes who have been in power for decades. Yet another country stands out among the rest in it's blunt use of violence, intimidation, and corruption. Syria has for the past four decades been ruled by the Assad family, starting with the bloodless coup orchestrated by the military and led to the rule of Hafez al-Assad, the father of now-president Bashar al-Assad. But the rule of Assad have been anything but bloodless. Marked by massacres of thousands, most notably the 1982 Hama massacre where nearly 40,000 deaths occurred due to bombing and door-to-door operations under the control of Hafez al-Assad's brother, Rifaat. Not the first time such horrible displays of violence had occurred, as before the entire village of Kinsafrah was massacres and more than 1,000 prisoners were executed in their cells. A long history of violence has shaped the Assad family's rule, and unfortunately it has once again reared up against the popular protests against the government.

Over the past nine months since protests have began, over 4,000 have been killed by the government officially. Thousands more are said to have been killed. Once again we see a regime striking back against it's people, people who are peaceful and nonviolent. once again the UN has placed sanctions on the government and its top officials in order to make it more difficult for them to travel, and to sap support from the regime financially. Once again these sanctions do relatively nothing as thousands are killed in the streets by armed thugs and security forces. And once again intervention is not wanted by those in the Arab League. The Arab League, while condemning the actions of the Syrian government and issuing threats against the government if it does not comply with terms to stop the violence, has stated that it does not want foreign intervention. Having reached the 4,000 mark has pushed the conflict to the point where it could technically be called a civil war. With more and more Syrians taking up arms every day, most notably the defecting Syrian military members, the threat of a civil war could very well be true. Like other similar situations in other countries however, any defecting army will have a hard time identifying their enemies. The Assad government has used the tactic of hiring armed thugs to disperse protestors and intimidate those who wish to speak out.



 The big question that has yet to be answered is whether or not to retaliate with violence. Is it right to retaliate against a government that sends out troops and thugs to kill peaceful protestors? Or is that just sinking to their level if you fight back? Taking the moral high ground seems to be favored by many, but just as many favor a retaliation attempt because of t he belief that they will keep attacking protestors until protestors fight back. These assumptions could be both verified and disputed based on happening in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. In Libya one could argue that Gaddafi's regime would just keep killing and that the resulting civil war was the only way real change could have been achieved. But if one looks at Tunisia, you can see a relatively violence-free (relatively) revolution where peaceful protests were able to overthrow the government. These outcomes often depend on the specific factors relating to each country, as each regime can be different in it's approach. Syria, in my opinion, seems more like a Libya than any other, and unfortunately i fear a civil war may be inevitable.