Is al-Assad first amongst defectors?

One might say that what happened to Bashar al-Assad following his latest television interview with the journalist Barbara Walters is divine retribution for what happened to Walid Muallem, or Walid “Abu Kalabsha” as we have decided to call him [Walid “Abu Kalabsha” 30/11/2011], with regards to his “fabricated” press conference.  However what happened to al-Assad was far greater and more dangerous than this.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has been preoccupied with denying that al-Assad said that the Syrian forces are not his forces, however it has not been as preoccupied in denying that he said – in the same interview – that he did not give orders to these forces to use violence against the Syrian people.  This has a number of important implications, most prominently al-Assad disassociating himself from the actions of the forces affiliated to him.  Of course, the US response to the al-Assad denial was harsh and unprecedented; with Washington saying that either al-Assad is disconnected from reality, in other words that he is like Gaddafi, who Condoleezza Rice – in her recent book – said lived “inside his own head” or either al-Assad is crazy.  Either of these descriptions being put forward by Washington would be harsh for any foreign leader, particularly as Washington did not even describe Saddam Hussein in such a manner, prior to the US occupation of Iraq.

This is not to mention the fact that al-Assad’s interview with the US journalist reminds us of Saddam Hussein’s interview with famous US journalist Dan Rather, prior to the US invasion of Iraq.  This is because this interview [with al-Assad], and what he said during it, represent two dangerous threats to the al-Assad regime.  Al-Assad’s statements during this interview must be taken seriously: and his statement that the Syrian armed forces are not his forces was clear, and it is absurd to say that this was taken out of context, particularly as this interview was a television interview.  Therefore the al-Assad regime’s attempted justifications of his statements [during this interview] are laughable and ridiculous, particularly the question later put forward by the Syrian Foreign Ministry regarding the meaning of the term “Shabiha”.

Therefore, al-Assad’s statement that the Syrian security forces are not his forces, or that he did not give them orders to kill the Syrian people and use brutal violence, has many implications.  Al-Assad’s statement suggests that he wants to tell the Americans, the West, and also the Syrians, that he is prepared to make an agreement which includes getting rid of his brother Maher al-Assad and other Syrian military leaders, in the same manner that his father took action against his own brother Rifaat al-Assad following the Hama massacre almost three decades ago.  This, of course, is political madness, for if al-Assad intended to sacrifice his brother, Syrian military leaders, and the Shabiha, in order to save himself, he could not possibly announce this publicly, and in a televised interview, unless al-Assad is first among defectors from his suppressive regime, and wants to send a message to the Americans to this effect.  Therefore, the al-Assad regime – internally – sensed the seriousness of al-Assad’s statement and moved to quickly and clearly deny this, and this is what led al-Assad to face this unprecedented personal attack [from Washington].  What is strange is that Washington is directing its most violent personal attacks against al-Assad, at the same time that the US ambassador to Syria is returning to Damascus once more, which is something that demonstrates the weakness of the al-Assad regime.  How can al-Assad accept a foreign state calling him crazy, or disconnected from reality, and then accept the return of that country’s ambassador onto his territory?

Therefore, either al-Assad truly is disconnected from reality, or crazy, or he is indicating to the west his preparedness to repeat his father’s experience with regards to what happened following the Hama massacre.