In what appeared to be little more than minutes into the negotiating process of these so-called Geneva 2 talks, Syrian government representatives and those the West has determined to be "an acceptable opposition", began trading barbs and accusations, to set the tone for future proceedings. Not a great start by any measure.
Hence, Bashar al-Assad is no closer to volunteering his neck for a noose than he ever was. Standing firm, Assad and his supporters demand to be full partners to any agreement reached in any negotiations. As President and leader of Syria's embattled nation, he's making the case that what occurred in Syria and currently occurring is his sole responsibility to manage and control.
The argument Bashar al-Assad has been making is thus: Whatever measures I, the leader of "My" country, deem necessary to put down a rebellion, crush an insurgency, expel foreign opportunist and restore rule of law, I as leader of Syria am within my rights to use said measures. Outsiders should beware, this, is an argument the Syrian leader can win.
Consider for a moment how a violent insurrection would be handled in America. Just for the sake of argument, imagine the tools the United States government has at its disposal to pacify any serious domestic resistance movement. Things would get ugly and things would get ugly fast!
One need only imagine how the United States would respond to the threat of armed demonstrators taking to the streets demanding change. What if elements of the Occupy Wall Street brought guns to that party? What if you heard an occasional gunshot ring out in the crowds of not so peaceful protestors? How do you think local law enforcement would deal with really pissed off Americans.
What if gun toting Tea Party types wanted to kick it up a notch? How do you think the pictures on cable news would look? How far would President Obama go to restore order? How much authority does he have to quell an uprising before he'd been considered crossing the line?
Cutting to the chase, the primary thrust of these talks should be directed toward ceasing the violence by any means necessary. Who gets to live is far more important now than who gets to lead. All sides must be persuaded to compromise on humanitarian grounds and for the sake of free, fair and open elections ASAP.
The world should know whether or not a plurality of Syrians are so sick and tired of life as a refugee, they'd say anything is better than their daily hell. Given an opportunity to vote, there's no telling how many Syrians would take their chances at Assad retaining power. Many, might even agree to a non-retribution clause considering "all sides" have been accused of doing some really bad shit. Hey, its the only way to move on!
Negotiators should approach the process with very simple, very limited, but achievable goals. Trying to accomplish anything more during this sensitive stage, will almost certainly guarantee failure. Supporting and encouraging the opposition to insist on fighting until Bashar al-Assad is dead or on the run without knowing if said opposition truly represent the will of the Syrian people, will only advance the interest of outsiders harboring hidden agendas.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration's motives are a bit more complicated than sparing the Syrian people additional unnecessary pain and anguish. Saving the Syrians is merely an incidental byproduct of dislodging Bashar al-Assad for the sole purpose of weakening Iran and isolating Hezbollah. Considering the United States is the driving force behind settling for nothing less than a hand picked transitional government, one can expect the conflict to rage on ad infinitum.
The Bottom line: Western Demands for a Transitional Syrian Government Will Only Prolong Hostilities