Message to GOP.

Or only to religious factions that oppose Assad?

(Another interesting recent quote: "What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?&quot

It is far more likely to blow up in your face than produce utopia.

It is a perfect quote. +1

This is no psychopath by any means. Assad represents, sadly, the most progressive force (relatively speaking) among the Arab leaders today.

And I'd be very interested to know the specifics of the West's involvement in initiating the rebellion against him.

and enforces it with his secret police. I suppose the Shah of Iran was "progressive" too and his secret police kept him in power for a long time.

Towards the end of his rule, it was American conservatives (accustomed to supporting foreign dictators) who wanted the US support him and his son (the idea of a son inheriting the right to rule from his father is not new) to stay, and fight if necessary, and rule Iran. It was President Carter and liberals who wanted the US to facilitate the Shah's departure rather than push Iran into a possible civil war.

I think that the US plots against the Shah were a mistake, and Carter paid the price in 1980.

And yeah, insisting on having your own way all the time is stupid, unless you really don't need anybody else.

Encouraging a dictator to leave is bad foreign policy?

For some reason this article did not mention plots by US liberals, like Carter, against the Shah as a factor in his overthrow.

Rather than "plotting against the Shah", should we have encouraged him, and later his son, to unleash the army and plunge Iran into a civil war to preserve their royal rule? I think it would not have taken much encouragement for him to do just this.

In Egypt, to extend the Iran comparison, should the US support rather than "plot against" a secular dictator who could emerge from the military coup? A new Pharoah (since this is Egypt, nor Iran), who imposed modernity through "oppression, brutality, corruption, and extravagance" (like the Shah) would be a good thing? If so we should thank the Egyptian military (and its US backers?) for overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood government.

in injust ways.

just like end of Mubarak did not mean people would embrace islamic fundies , the end of the muslim brotherhood does not mean people will accept an alternative power which continues to oppress and not provide for the people.

... to have left Syria be instead of arming a radical opposition bound to create a violent future, or to have upheld continued basic support for Mubarak, when three years running things are still turmoil in Egypt.

One counter-argument might favor the goal of destabilizing the entire region. It comes to looking that way after decades of peace and relative calm, but who really wants a weak and restless Arab World?

And will AQ and the rest declare jihad against the Egyptian military?

To avenge the overthrow of Brother Morsi?

I know if the guy I elected got ousted by a coup I'd be all up in arms...

endorsement

and what will Assad do when people in Syria also see that

We all know which US president he stole that line from.

He has used that line from the beginning in 2011 when massive peaceful protests were not even urging his departure, just a more open and representative government. Repressing peaceful protests in a police state is not that difficult but eliminating that element of the opposition also opens the door for more violent actors.

His tactic proves to other dictators that if you use the army to put down democracy movements, particularly in the Middle East, you may be unpopular at the beginning but, as time goes on, the repression will bring out the most violent wings of the domestic opposition to you and attract "really bad characters" from elsewhere.

Voila! You are no longer the bad dictator opposing large peaceful protests but a great sectarian leader opposing religious fanatics. He has largely won this the PR battle. Practically everyone on the left and right think that now the only 2 choices left are Assad or the jihadists; that there is no third choice. Now that he has driven the conflict to the point of "You have to choose between a bad guy and a worse guy", he is looking pretty good. Now the army just has to win the military battle. With a continuing supply of tanks, planes and ammunition that should not be too hard. There is a lesson here for dictators everywhere.