THE WIND OF CHANGE HITTING SAUDI ARABIA 13 September 2014

THE WIND OF CHANGE HITTING SAUDI ARABIA:
Ghassan Kadi.
13 September 2014


The Saudi Royal family came to power with the help of the father of Wahhabism. They adopted his radical views of Islam initially to gain support, and later on realized that they were able to use that same tool in order to suppress the masses and stay in power.

That was the root of fundamentalism that later on led to the creation of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, war on Syria etc…

With ISIS spiralling out of control and making direct and overt threats to the Saudi royals, the royals now see that they cannot control that monster any longer. The Saudis are serious about curbing ISIS, but they are facing a huge dilemma.

Domestically, Saudi clerics are split into two groups. Sources, including the link below, are not reporting the percentages, but indicating something like an even split between clerics who support the royals in their call to fend off ISIS, and others who literally want to stick to their guns and remain steadfast with the push for fundamentalism.

The huge dilemma that the royals are facing is in the fact that they cannot be seen by common everyday Saudis to be taking stands that are against the very principles of fundamentalist Wahhabism. After all, this is the doctrine of the royal family and the foundation that gave it power for all those decades.

The Saudis are at a loss. They realize that Bandar’s gamble has failed abysmally in Syria and that the repercussions are already hitting home.


Saudi Arabia is currently in survival mode. The wind of change is blowing and blowing hard, and the royals will have to either change their strategic ideology and have confrontation with its own power base or in order to survive, or simply do nothing and act as sitting ducks waiting for ISIS to take over.
For anyone to imagine that the Saudis continue to be interested in a regime change in Syria is rather illogical even for the Saudis. If anything, they are screaming for help from all possible allies. Would it not be ironic if they eventually go the President Assad begging for support?

Al Saud have played with fire for a long time. The fundamentalist Islam they created in the region has not been any less devastating than Zionsim. They will soon reap the fruit of the karma seed they planted.

http://m.alhurra.com/a/Saudi-Arabia-clerics-Islamic-state/257705.html

OBAMA'S SPEECH AND THE ELUSIVE MODERATE REBELS: 13 September 2014

OBAMA’S SPEECH AND THE ELUSIVE MODERATE REBELS:
Ghassan Kadi.
13 September 2014


I read Obama’s speech fairly differently from some. I see some great deal of potential good in it.
For starters,... his language, and body language in specific, fall in what is colloquially referred to as a “try hard” attempt to look tough. Moreover, his extended ending and the pep-talk to Americans can only be seen, if we were to read in between the lines, to indicate just the contrary. What he is really saying to Americans is that America is no longer the great nation and superpower it used to be. The fact that he sees that Americans need convincing that nothing has changed, and reminding of the superpower status of America are stark indications of the contrary.

Even his gift of speech has weakened and almost disappeared totally. Words used to flow out of his mouth like a torrent, like the words of great orators, and now, he sounds at best like a Don Quixote, a clown. Add to this the signs of ageing, and Obama looks like a tired old man, so much different from the one campaigning for his first term, a man at the end of his tether.

That aside, apart from the negative things he said about the Syrian President, he did not talk about “regime change”; neither directly nor indirectly. And if the USA is going to try not to allow the Syrian government to control Eastern Syria, it would perhaps be because it wishes to keep Western Syria in the hands of the Syrian government. In other words, America could be angling for the partition of Syria into a state bound by the latitude of say Palmyra, leaving the Western coastal region in the hands of the Syrian government, and inserting an extended Kurdish state in between Syria and Iraq. Such a scheme is more “logical” now given the outcome of over three years of war, and evil as it is, is a far lesser ambition than the previous plan of toppling the Syrian government and handing over the full control of the whole of Syria to the fighters.

When Obama talks about supporting the “moderate rebels”, we well know that if he means the FSA, they are virtually exterminated or just on the verge. They can try to rebirth it, but it remains highly unlikely that their efforts will be effective. The genie is out and Obama cannot any longer supply and support Islamists, and he will likely be putting pressure on Turkey soon in this regard.
The elusive “moderates” can only be the Kurds; including Syrian Kurds, most of whom are on the Syrian government’s side. It is highly likely that Obama will try to lure them with the promise of a bigger Kurdish state.


The talk of “regime change” cannot be any longer advantageous to any of the enemies of Syria and the Saudis have much bigger concerns of their own. The Saudis clearly see that their own necks are now on the chopping board, and there are many reports of growing support for ISIS within Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are in survival mode; full stop.

Furthermore, America is in the habit of demonizing its next victim to order to create media frenzy and hysteria to ramp up support for attacking him. I do not see any current demonizing of President Assad. All of the propaganda is targeted at ISIS. Why would America suddenly change its tactics? Bullies have their comfort zones and normally do not make any changes to their modus operandi. In being currently engaged in demonizing President Putin, the Americans are clearly sticking to their old tactics.

This is not to forget that for the first time in more than three years, Obama is talking about taking steps towards stopping further influx of fighters and arms into Syria. He is inadvertently admitting, for the first time, that he was previously aiding their influx, and indirectly confessing that it was a mistake. If this is not a positive development, what is?

America is in deep trouble and it is very obvious. It seems in utter confusion about what to do in the Levant, and in its arrogance, it cannot turn around and suddenly start working with the Syrian government. Some sources however reveal that there has already been American/Syrian communications. Obama is desperately looking for a way out of the mess that American policies have created in the Levant, and he is hoping to find a face saver. This is how I read his speech, and to say that Russia is over-occupied with Ukraine cannot be accurate. Russia is a superpower, and even though the Ukraine issue is a huge one, but superpowers know well how to juggle many issues all at once.

This is how I read Obama’s speech and the current developments; I am not going to apologize for being an optimist.

AMERICAN STRIKE ON SYRIA; STRATEGIC FACT OR ANALYST FICTION! By Ghassan Kadi 29 August 2014

AMERICAN STRIKE ON SYRIA; STRATEGIC FACT OR ANALYST FICTION!
By Ghassan Kadi
29 August 2014
The talk about an imminent American strike on the Government of Syria and the people of Syria is ridiculous to say the least. 
The word “ridiculous” has been used herein in reference to the use of the term “imminent” or similar strong words in such reports. 
This is not to say that an American strike on Syria, its government and people is in the realm of impossibility. As a matter of fact, the history of the last five to six decades proves without any shadow of doubt, that America does not think much before deciding to bomb any country of its choosing, with or without a reason. 

However, at best, an American attack on Syria, its government and people, during this particular phase, is only speculation, and analysts making such claims should report them as speculation and not as facts.

One can be a PhD in Political Science without mastering the art of political analysis. Political analysis, just like writing skills, art, sporting prowess etc., is a skill and a talent that can be nurtured and improved. However, it cannot be taught. You can teach someone to sight read and play “Fur Elise” faultlessly, but you cannot teach any person how to be a composer.

In this distinguished group of ours, over the last three years or so, we have seen many sorts of over the top, irrational theories come and go. The story of the alleged “imminent” strike on Syria will be one of those stories, but perhaps not the last.

Political analysis has no real rules and regulations, after all, a lot of it can be biased and underpinned by favouritism and thus using what is meant to be objective and informed pieces of analytical literature as a means of spreading propaganda. Fox News and its protégé Al Jazeera are perfect examples of this category. 

Another less vicious form of improper political analysis is one that is based on charged emotions. A political analyst cannot make proper assessments of situations if he or she is allowing his/her passion, fear, pursuit of vengeance, patriotism, political or religious indoctrination and similar mindsets to mask his/her rationality and allowing them to stand in the way of perceiving facts as they are.

This is when strategic thinking comes into play. An army general wants to win a forthcoming battle he is about to enter. His emotions are involved. His political, national, perhaps even religious affiliations are all involved, but for him to win the battle he has to think strategically, with his mind and not with his heart.

A political analyst should not be any different, even if he/she has specific preferences. In this respect, as Syrian patriots and supporters of Syria, its people and its government, we have to think with the mind of that army general going into battle before we put our thoughts on paper.

I have great respect for Pepe Escobar, Anthony Cartalucci, Andrew Korybyko and others who have supported Syria. However, I feel very dismayed, to put it mildly, when I see their followers mirroring their thoughts in this group with a passion that I hate to admit is quite irrational. Even if we reduce these analysts’ theories to mere speculations, a proper analysis of the situation clearly indicates that those speculations are far from being tenable.

Ironically, in the Arab world, there is no such talk in the media or at the tables of cafes. The only outspoken cynics to this new direction of a possible Syrian-US collaboration, if there is indeed any, is coming from the mouths of Islamists and their supporters who are saying that the truth has finally come out and that Syria, America, Iran and Hezbollah have all along been colluding to wipe out Sunnis and that they are no longer capable of hiding their collusion.

There is absolutely no talk in the Arab world and Arab media about a possible US strike on Syria, its government and its people. Here one has to stop and wonder as to what level of “inside information” those non -Arab alleged experts of the politics of the Levant and region have. Do they believe that eminent Arab journalists, analysts and the like, are unaware or perhaps too incompetent to foresee such a strike and write about it ? or do they think that they have all the information at their fingertips without having to read what their Arab counterparts are saying and, more importantly, what they are not saying? This is indeed arrogance at its worst.

President Obama has said that he doesn’t yet have a strategy to fight ISIS. It is indeed difficult to have such a strategy, especially one that is meant to be effective on the long term. It is possible, and again, I would not say probable or definite, as I not jump to the level of turning my speculations into facts, but, I will say, that it is possible that President Obama has finally woken up to realise that the world has got one billion Muslim youths and that, each and every one of them is a potential ISIS recruit.

Logic implies that any which way America dealt with Islamic Jihadists in the past, up until very recently it had the false impression that it could wield them. When Bandar went to Putin last year he bragged about his ability to turn the Jihadists on and off at will. It didn’t take long after that for Bandar to fall on his sword, showing the rest of the world that he is nothing more than a buffoon and an idiot who is totally unable to have any control on the monster that he helped to create in conjunction with the Americans.

If Obama has suddenly woken up to this and realised that with Bandar out of the picture in that capacity and with the rest of the Saudi royals begging Obama to keep ISIS at bay, then he will have to change strategy and tactics, and do this fast.
In such an event, the last thing on Obama’s mind will be a regime change in Syria. 

In politics the shades of grey are the determinant factors, not the black and white. A political analyst should have the knowledge and understand military strategy and human nature and then apply to this common sense. It would seem that those unwritten rules have been compromised in this new craze, sending fear and doubts, especially within this group. This is not a call for censorship, it is a call for reason. Finally, I beg to excuse the repetition, but analysts and their followers who are fearing an American attack on Syria at this point should be responsible enough to say that they are reporting their own speculation and not facts.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/283089981710448/permalink/841518792534228/

NEVER TO BE TRUSTED AGAIN. By Ghassan Kadi 26 July 2014

NEVER TO BE TRUSTED AGAIN
26 July 2014

Once a traitor, then never to be trusted.
Khaled Mashaal did a very dirty back flip on Syria 3 years ago, and he should never be trusted again. The same goes for Ismail Haniyye.
It is sad that the fate of the people of Gaza is in the hands of Hamas. Hamas as a whole cannot be trusted anymore, not after it turned its back on its friends (Syria, Hezbollah and Iran) and shook hands with the Qataris.

Now, that Hamas feels cornered again, it is trying to flirt with Iran and Hezbollah. This should not be accepted.

There are certainly some good elements in Hamas, but unless the leadership dumps many faces, especially Mashaal and Haniyye, then their current stand can only be seen as opportunistic.

Hamas is using Gazans as humans shields and offering them on the sacrifice alter. They do not seem to care about how many get killed. What they want is not simply the liberation of Palestine. They want their own version of it, under their own rule and conditions.

Finally, I would like to ask this simple question. How is it that Hamas was able to dig tunnels that connect it with Egypt and even Israel and they are unable to build bomb shelters for Gazans?
Now, that Hamas feels cornered again, it is trying to flirt with Iran and Hezbollah. This should not be accepted.

There are certainly some good elements in Hamas, but unless the leadership dumps many faces, especially Mashaal and Haniyye, then their current stand can only be seen as opportunistic.

Hamas is using Gazans as humans shields and offering them on the sacrifice alter. They do not seem to care about how many get killed. What they want is not simply the liberation of Palestine. They want their own version of it, under their own rule and conditions.

Finally, I would like to ask this simple question. How is it that Hamas was able to dig tunnels that connect it with Egypt and even Israel and they are unable to build bomb shelters for Gazans?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=694132367329580&set=a.108568162552673.13501.100001984705808&type=3&permPage=1&ifg=1

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS;DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION. Part II. By Ghassan Kadi.

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION.
Part II

By Ghassan Kadi. 30 May 2014


Are Syrians going to the polls now to actually make a choice, or is this a façade operation orchestrated by the “regime” as the “Anti-Syrian Coalition” wants us to believe? We cannot superficially look at today’s event without examining the growing pains that have led to this moment.


President Hafez Assad was a man of great wisdom and vision, and he knew it. He knew what was right for Syria and its people, and he knew that only through hard work, perseverance, prudence and above all, great sacrifices that Syria could return to the road of recovery.


His perception of Syria was not any different from his perception of Palestine and Lebanon. On the 8th of March 1974, he made a clear message to Israel and the West when he said that Palestine was “a principal part of Southern Syria”. He later on sent his troops into Lebanon to prevent it from being blackholed into the Israeli sphere of dominion. 

For his perception of Palestine, he paid a hefty price. He was punished heavily by the West and misunderstood by Arabs; including the PLO chief Yasser Arafat.

He always rightfully believed that the Palestinian question was too big for Palestinians to handle on their own. It is, in his view, a central Arab issue, and more specifically, a Syrian issue.

“Peace is not for the weak” President Assad always said, and he was unable to persuade Arab leaders of his long-term agenda of building up enough might to stand up against the bullish American-Israeli alliance. Arab leaders had already taken the decision to comply with the wishes of the enemy, and the last thing they wanted was a confident patriot telling them that they should unite and fight, especially if that patriot was an Alawite.    

Even Arafat insisted on the “independent Palestinian decision”, and his decisions were often at odds with those of Assad and did not fit into the long-term strategies. Assad regarded Palestine as a part of Syria and that it was his stewardship that was needed to bring it justice, but Arafat regarded him as a domineering dictating usurper.

Unable to make sense to Arab defeatists and the gung ho Arafat, Assad invested in educating the Syrian population about the responsibility that rested on their shoulders. Once again, he needed longevity and consistency in order to be able to achieve this, and not policies that can be swept away by the winner of the next “democratic” elections.

This finally brings us to the current Syrian Presidential election.

When Syrians went to vote for Hafez Assad from 1971 onwards, they did not have much of a choice. This is true. 

Hafez Assad was a great believer in the patriotism of his people. The memories of Yusuf Al-Azmeh and his gallant men were alive in his memory. Al-Azmeh moved with an outnumbered and ill-equipped regiment to stop the French occupation of Damascus in 1920. Al-Azmeh with his men marched to their certain death, but they were determined not to allow the French into Damascus unopposed. 

The victorious Henri Gouraud marched into Damascus, desecrated the tomb of Saladin by putting his foot on it saying: “Saladin, we have returned”. Memories of those stories, the western treacheries, the creation of Israel etc.. never left the President’s mind and he made a point of giving all his political Western visitors lessons in history in all of his meetings with them.

Assad knew that his people, the Syrian people had what it took to be fiercely independent and all they needed was a leader they can trust, one who can galvanize them, and he knew he was that man. He was bemused by people who simply cheered for him to make themselves look good, but without proper understanding of his policies and strategies. He always sought allies, not stooges, but true allies who were able to understand, prepared to walk the talk, and walk the distance were rare and hard to find.

Patriotic education became an integral component of the school curriculum. Army conscription had already been in place. Yet many Syrians remained skeptical and regarded the whole exercise as Baathist propaganda. However, after 3-4 years of Muslim Brotherhood terror campaign of 1979-1982, many Syrians realized that Syria indeed had many internal enemies and that the leadership was able to deal with them effectively. Even though those events made Assad lose some popularity with the Islamic fundamentalists, but his popularity amongst the general populace increased. 

Later on, with Assad’s defiance to the American-Israeli plot, his refusal to surrender, his refusal to the “Reagan Plan”, his ability to turn the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon on Mehahim Begin’s head, his perseverance and successes, all finally paid dividends and made him gain more and more domestic support.

Early on in his “reign”, he was voted in because they had no other choice. Later on, some perhaps voted for him out of fear, but in each subsequent election, more and more Syrians voted for him out of conviction, devotion and love.

 After the angel of death took this great man away, continuity dictated that his son should succeed him. If this meant dictatorship, then it also meant that the fruit of 30 years of labour and sacrifices were not going to be wasted away.

 President Bashar Assad was steadfast and diligent to stick to the policies of reform and resistance to the Western-Israeli plot of submission.

It is of little wonder that by then the defiant proud and independent Syria had angered many nations and made a score of enemies within and without its borders. Enemies with very broad and diverse agendas, only united by their hatred towards Syria’s stand of honour.

 When the “War On Syria” started in 2011, the popularity of Bashar was very high, but some Syrians were taken by the fervour of the “Arab Spring” and genuinely thought that there was indeed a move in Syria for more and quicker reform. Those reformists however were not the ones that carried guns and destroyed the infrastructure. Before too long, the enemies who are consumed with their deep fundamentalist sectarian hatred emerged from the woodwork. 

 Before too long, Syrians advocating reform realized that they were duped, and one by one, individually and in groups, they are waking up to the true conspiracy. Even some of them who took up arms are now responding to the calls of reconciliation and amnesty. We have recently seen this happen in many places, the most advertised one was the one in Homs.

 Earlier on during the “War On Syria”, the West was “demanding” new elections in Syria. Now, with all of the recent developments, with the series of victories of the Syrian Army, and most importantly perhaps, with the rising popularity of President Bashar, the West is treating the Syrian Presidential Election like a non-event. 

 Little does the West know that before going to the polls, Syrians had 3 long years of war and 3 long years of remembering the words and warnings of the late and great Hafez Assad. Some of what he forewarned about did not make much sense to those with short vision. Now, they know that he was right. They had to learn the hard way. Now, they also know that for them to secure the continuity of their dignity, they have to remain steadfast and united behind their President of choice.

 Finally, the revolution of Hafez Assad had gone the full circle. His vision is now in the hearts and minds of his people to whom he devoted his life. 

 Long before the current elections, Syrians have decided to vote with their blood. Blood is thicker than water and reverberates thunders that will echo for centuries, long after the poll count has been taken.

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION (part 1). By Ghassan Kadi

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION.
Part I. 
By Ghassan Kadi.   29 May 2014

 If we were to analyze the Syrian presidential election, we should stop and look at the controversy it is creating and the Western propaganda that are downplaying the ev...ent. In doing so, we must feel at liberty to have a closer look at the Western system that puts itself head and shoulders above any other political system in the world.


The West has bamboozled the world with terms such as Free Economy, Democracy, and so go forth, and gave descriptions to other nations that are not on par different descriptions of inferior ranks that go all the way from Second/Third World countries to being part of the “Axis of Evil”.

Western Democracy has not been given the test of universality of application. For it to be a universal model, it must have what it takes to make work under all socio-economic conditions. In reality, it has only been put to the test in nations that have already “reached” the so-called “First World Status”.

For the last two centuries or so, the West did not “need” any major change, an ideological coup to make life better for its people; and hence democracy, revised versions inherited from the Roman or Westminster systems worked fine. For the West that had usurped and plundered other nations, created for itself an economy of abundance, it is easy to pontificate and proclaim that it had found the perfect system, and then to have the audacity to say that the rest of the world must adopt it.
Now here is a question. Is Western style democracy able to make huge changes when such changes are warranted? 

 To answer this question, we will have to watch Europe and see if Western Democracy is going to be able to deal with the declining economic power of different nations in Europe. For better or for worse, we have already seen a taste of such scenarios in Greece, but this is perhaps the tip of the ice berg.

 In saying this, the USA is not far behind. According to some economic analysts, the American economy is far worse than that of Europe and even Greece. It had only been kept afloat by short-term measures such as “financial easing” (ie printing money), measures that will at best push away the fix, only to make it much harder to achieve. In this instance, the Obama administration knows what hole it is digging, but it is only making short-term measures that make it look good and popular.

 The bottom line here is that major decisions of governess which imply sacrifices by individuals for the sake of public good are often taken with popular disdain. Many people think about now and today. What is in it for me? How is this new government policy going to affect my business and my family? It is invariably on such individualistic bases that Western voters go to the polls. 

 This is why in Western democracies, politicians present hope and promise wealth and affluence. This is how they win votes and get elected.  

 Wars such as WWI and WWII did not last long enough to put Western Democracy under the long-term test of duress, neither did the Great Depression. Citizens of poor nations constantly live under standards that are well below those of the Great Depression.
When President Hafez Assad assumed power after the “Corrective Movement” in 1970 and had this followed by a referendum, Syria had a multitude of huge problems. It needed a total overhaul and gigantic nation-building programs. 

 If President Assad had to deal with holding on power the Western style, he would have had to either make false promises, or alternatively go to his constituency and say something to this effect:
“Our economy is in ruins, our army needs huge amounts of funds to be modernized and well equipped. We need to implement extremely tough economic measures. Most of you will be worse off for a long time before it gets better. We have to ban imports of all luxury goods. We must dedicate 80% of our budget to the army. Above all, all citizens must understand that their nation is in a state of war, they must fight sectarianism and fundamentalism, unite behind their leader, put their trust in his judgement, re and re-elect him until he gets the job done, and take it as it comes. And by the way, a ban on banana import will also be put in place….sorry, but if you want to eat bananas, you will have to learn how to grow them”.

In reality, these were the challenges that President Hafez Assad had to address, and the longevity of his presidency was the guarantee that the reforms were not to be derailed by some smart jump-up politician who would eventually come and promise the earth just to get himself elected.

 In simple terms, Western-style democracy where nation-building is essential does not work, especially when nations are in a state of war like Syria is. After all, Western leaders have two major concerns, how to get elected, and how to get re-elected, and they do this at any cost, just to appease their voters, treating public interest with least concern.

 The West will soon find itself in a dilemma in which aspiring politicians are going to find it very hard to get elected, unless they capitalize on rising emotions such as fundamentalism and radicalism. We are in fact witnessing beginnings to such trends in Europe. The Ultra-Right groups, including the Tea Party in the USA are aware of the loophole in the system and are using it to their favour.

 If democracy is going to work well, it will have to be based on what is best for the majority, not on cumulative majorities of private agendas. Western democracy has been based on the latter, and its failings were fairly invisible because it ruled during times of economic strength. This is changing, and the West will soon either have to drop the Democracy that it took to the world with B-52’s attached to it, or sit back and allow it (Western Democracy) to turn into a monster that will put extreme radicals in power.

To be continued.

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION. Part I. By Ghassan Kadi 29 May 2014

THE SYRIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS; DEVOLUTION OF A REVOLUTION. Part I.
By Ghassan Kadi
29 May 2014

If we were to analyze the Syrian presidential election, we should stop and look at the controversy it is creating and the Western propaganda that are downplaying the event. In doing so, we must feel at liberty to have a closer look at the Western system that puts itself head and shoulders above any other political system in the world.

The West has bamboozled the world with terms such as Free Economy, Democracy, and so go forth, and gave descriptions to other nations that are not on par different descriptions of inferior ranks that go all the way from Second/Third World countries to being part of the “Axis of Evil”.

Western Democracy has not been given the test of universality of application. For it to be a universal model, it must have what it takes to make work under all socio-economic conditions. In reality, it has only been put to the test in nations that have already “reached” the so-called “First World Status”.

For the last two centuries or so, the West did not “need” any major change, an ideological coup to make life better for its people; and hence democracy, revised versions inherited from the Roman or Westminster systems worked fine. For the West that had usurped and plundered other nations, created for itself an economy of abundance, it is easy to pontificate and proclaim that it had found the perfect system, and then to have the audacity to say that the rest of the world must adopt it.

Now here is a question. Is Western style democracy able to make huge changes when such changes are warranted?

To answer this question, we will have to watch Europe and see if Western Democracy is going to be able to deal with the declining economic power of different nations in Europe. For better or for worse, we have already seen a taste of such scenarios in Greece, but this is perhaps the tip of the ice berg.

In saying this, the USA is not far behind. According to some economic analysts, the American economy is far worse than that of Europe and even Greece. It had only been kept afloat by short-term measures such as “financial easing” (ie printing money), measures that will at best push away the fix, only to make it much harder to achieve. In this instance, the Obama administration knows what hole it is digging, but it is only making short-term measures that make it look good and popular.

The bottom line here is that major decisions of governess which imply sacrifices by individuals for the sake of public good are often taken with popular disdain. Many people think about now and today. What is in it for me? How is this new government policy going to affect my business and my family? It is invariably on such individualistic bases that Western voters go to the polls.

This is why in Western democracies, politicians present hope and promise wealth and affluence. This is how they win votes and get elected.

Wars such as WWI and WWII did not last long enough to put Western Democracy under the long-term test of duress, neither did the Great Depression. Citizens of poor nations constantly live under standards that are well below those of the Great Depression.

When President Hafez Assad assumed power after the “Corrective Movement” in 1970 and had this followed by a referendum, Syria had a multitude of huge problems. It needed a total overhaul and gigantic nation-building programs.

If President Assad had to deal with holding on to power the Western style, he would have had to either make false promises, or alternatively go to his constituency and say something to this effect:

     “Our economy is in ruins, our army needs huge amounts of funds to be modernized and well equipped. We need to implement extremely tough economic measures. Most of you will be worse off for a long time before it gets better. We have to ban imports of all luxury goods. We must dedicate 80% of our budget to the army. Above all, all citizens must understand that their nation is in a state of war, they must fight sectarianism and fundamentalism, unite behind their leader, put their trust in his judgement, re and re-elect him until he gets the job done, and take it as it comes. And by the way, a ban on banana import will also be put in place….sorry, but if you want to eat bananas, you will have to learn how to grow them”.

In reality, these were the challenges that President Hafez Assad had to address, and the longevity of his presidency was the guarantee that the reforms were not to be derailed by some smart jump-up politician who would eventually come and promise the earth just to get himself elected.

In simple terms, Western-style democracy where nation-building is essential does not work, especially when nations are in a state of war like Syria is. After all, Western leaders have two major concerns, how to get elected, and how to get re-elected, and they do this at any cost, just to appease their voters, treating public interest with least concern.

The West will soon find itself in a dilemma in which aspiring politicians are going to find it very hard to get elected, unless they capitalize on rising emotions such as fundamentalism and radicalism. We are in fact witnessing beginnings to such trends in Europe. The Ultra-Right groups, including the Tea Party in the USA are aware of the loophole in the system and are using it to their favour.

If democracy is going to work well, it will have to be based on what is best for the majority, not on cumulative majorities of private agendas. Western democracy has been based on the latter, and its failings were fairly invisible because it ruled during times of economic strength. This is changing, and the West will soon either have to drop the Democracy that it took to the world with B-52’s attached to it, or sit back and allow it (Western Democracy) to turn into a monster that will put extreme radicals in power.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=662955567113927&set=a.108568162552673.13501.100001984705808&type=3&ifg=1

To be continued