Syria's most cruel and abominable tyrant

In Showtime series The Tudors' third season, exiled clergyman and cardinal Reginald Pole grovels in tears before a crucifix in self-denial and melancholy after receiving word that King Henry VIII has tried and executed his mother and brother rather than commend his refusal to submit to Anglican church doctrines. His German Catholic mentor Otto von Waldburg (perhaps miscast, but brillantly so, by Max von Sydow) is called upon, and enters the room to comfort the younger priest of his convictions. "The King of England", he says in a brusque but wonderfully eloquent voice, "is the most cruel and abominable tyrant. There's no doubt now. He must be overthrown by force. Better that he should die, than risk the eternal damnation of all his subjects." (If not too wary about spoilers, you can see the clip here, if you jump to the spot labeled 2:20). Before leaving, he discloses his own horror to the protegé, of a sister who was brutally seized, raped and tortured to death by fellow German soldiers years earlier, perhaps even blaming himself for not being able to save her; "All of us have burdens to carry, Cardinal Pole."

In Henry's days, opposition (as well as the two wives he had beheaded on trumped-up treason charges) would have had more to fear from the second realm of damnation, the afterlife, where a cruel and abominable ruler, no matter how ungodly, may send you as well if managing to break you from the true faith. In the last year's more and more intensifying crackdown on opposition by the Syrian government, many soldiers of faith and liberty may have died most ignominiously believing that their torment was only about to start. I myself do not believe in such thing as torment following the irrevocable death of the senses called hell. "Hell", as French philosopher Sartre famously put it, "is other people." Never does this statement feel more accurate than when faced with the naked brutality of the social contract about to be broken by those molested in its name during many, many years of compliance. When about to break, Leviathan fights you off more fiercely and violently than ever before. Nonetheless, in this cruelty are the seeds of its own downfall. Assad, the Lion, has not been able to buy off his people with overnight fraction-measure reforms, not after half a century of submission to his Ba'ath Party, the only one still in power since the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The only year without state of emergency has been the bloodiest so far, not counting the 1982 Hama revolt, shelled and riddled to dust most effectively by his uncle Rifaat to the cost of an unknown death toll, perhaps closer to 30,000. That accounts to five to ten Chilean military juntas, one to two Videla dictatorships, almost one Trujillo, two to ten percent of the casualties of Saddam's sanguinary rule in Iraq, which transformed old Mesopotamia into more of a makeshift abbatoir (though far more beautiful on the outside) whenever resistance arose at a larger scale. Half a Henry VIII, whose courts by some sources had 70,000 of his subjects executed (most, I should admit, for non-political crimes).
All in February 1982.

When we count the losses, it is possible indeed that the costs of this revolt have been far greater, in terms of human lives. The deeper, collective wounds in the Syrian soul and the infrastructure of the country is long since non-disputable. The Syrian cold, now as much a struggle for Assad's life as for his position ("When you play the game of thrones...") has most forcibly and ignominiously ejected tens of thousands of its own people, many after unspeakable pain and humiliation. Unlike the events of 1982, the toll keeps on expanding by several people as I write this post. A good motivation, I must admit.

There is little reason to believe that Turkey alone will bring about the end of what used to be a somewhat aligned partner in the region, now foes locked in a formal state of war. Backed by the European Union's ineffective and unsubstantiated defense treaty and NATO allies, should the shelling of innocent non-subjects of the tyrant continue, both these parties must consider their possible obligations to intensify the conflict and bring about its conclusion. Yesterday, Republican Mitt Romney took the opportunity to deliver another punch of optimism and opportunism at the Democratic Obama administration for failure to intervene with sufficient measures. With a respect for both parties' motives for their current course of action (as well as for the notion of the Founding Fathers not to intervene in the affairs of other countries - a notion shared by Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson - which I respect and commend in principle) I fully concur with the message.

Syria is not Rwanda, and will not climb anywhere near such a degree of inhuman butchery within decades to come. Nor is its fairly united armed forces comparable with the ludicrous ones of Gaddafi's Jamahiriya, the air force in particular, though the Swedish one could have turned it into mush 40 years ago, in the late dawn of the Assads, the Alawites, and Hizb al-Ba'ath. But even for a greater effort, air superiority in favour of the Free Syrian Army might just as then prove the most effective way to turn the tide on the ground, and that any of Assad's major allies would openly support him in the skies is unlikely. Even for the liable fundamentalist leadership in Tehran, it would produce more problems their degree of reason would allow them to comprehend with at the moment, and if so, another setback might prove fatal to Supreme Leader Khamenei's position as well, should he choose to strike the first blow by further fuelling the case for more torture and torment of his Western neighbours.

Assad must be overthrown by force; there is no other option. The issue of whether it is our "responsibility" to intervene with deadly force I will not enter. To some such a solution might be uncomfortable, or even deadly; to others, a relief or even a blessing. The support here does not linger after that on the spot - the argument for intervention is stronger still than that against Gaddafi, for years a pet of pro-authority intellectuals and pragmatics, while the sordid eye doctor has failed to make such a moral case for his repressive rule, thus moving even deeper in the filth marked by the footsteps of father Hafeez. He might prove just as effective in breaking the back of the opposition, ranging from feminists and liberals to die-hard Islamists, all to the dismay of their mutual cause, and ours. If managing to rebalance himself in the saddle he will not be merciful, whatever diplomatic measure or embargo the United Nations might concoct at such a stage. The stage for action is now; it can never be yesterday.

The President of Syria is the most cruel and abominable tyrant. Any doubts left have perished; he must be overthrown by force. It will not be without risk or undisclosed consequences. But we have burdens to carry already, and the one building up as we ponder the facts and indulge in violent imagery might prove even harder to carry once the last blood has been spilled. Impartiality, as Thomas Jefferson may never have remarked, is always partial.

Postscript: Recognizing that I'm a bit glib on Henry's wives; Catherine, his fifth, may have been a real bitch and adulterous enough to mitigate any husband's wrath and disgust. In saying "trumped-up", I essentially say the case for a death sentence rested in the King's hands, and had little to do with the famously impartial English justice of the day.