The thesis connecting providential stability to Assad's legitimacy is sharp, especially the contrast between the 2021 election as a last off-ramp versus the full throated embrace of jihadist takeover in December 2024. The link to Paul's Romans 13 framework about earthly authorities hits becuase it forces an uncomfortable question about whether stability under authoritarianism beats chaos under fragmented militias. I saw similar patterns inIraq consulting work where the anti-Saddam crowd dunno how to deal with the fact that post-invasion sectarian violence killed more civilians than the prior decades of Ba'athist rule.
Glad to hear, and I hope the larger explanation here might strike a chord with your own analytical verdicts, Amaterasu. To my admission, I rushed a bit when typing this article out earlier in the day, so I can mention a few more details here in the comment section if you perhaps find it of additional help to sum things up with extra clarity.
Awesome, and sure thing: so basically, think about it as contrasting social contracts in terms of how "high" the bar is to jump over. Imperial Rome offered a very paternalistically crude and unpromising bargain for the residents of its empire: you're either a rich male to possess any standing, or you're left to your own means of survival, and if you aspire freedom, you will be ruthlessly tortured and crushed. And yet it was understood in the 1st century among the earliest Christians that the imperial Roman Empire was a legitimate temporal earthly authority that was to be obeyed so long as its dictates did not violate the conscience pertaining to the Christian faith.
In other words, it was a very high bar to jump over. Compared to ancient Rome, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a medium-low bar to jump over: aspirations for "freedom" apart from the Ba'ath ruling party meant the likelihood of a forced disappearance, being subject to torture, and so on, but full harmonious cooperation meant the ability to live a peaceful life in security and state-sponsored social services (at least before the post-Gulf War imposition of brutal sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children). For especially Iraq's Shi'a population, it seemed *during* Saddam's rule that accepting Ba'athist legitimacy was often too high a bar to jump over especially towards the 1990s, but many of them realized in the post-2003 era that the bar was only raised even higher under the American-Iranian overseen SCIRI-Badr proxy government: even if they were loyal to the new regime's security apparatus, there was no promise of safety by any means, and top-own corruption was rampant amidst sectarian wounds.
However, because Saddam was gone by the late 2000s, the question of whether most Iraqis would in practical terms actually be willing to return to the old days for the long run is a theoretical question.
Syria is different: not only was the choice only ever-clear as the dirty war dragged on, but the bar to jump over as low as it ever could get, because Bashar al-Assad fundamentally was a soft-hearted kittens-and-unicorns platinum-star human rights activist by traditional "tyranny" standards.
Unlike Saddam Hussein, who shamelessly resorted to collective punishment modes of brutality to suppress uprisings and especially through chemical weapon deployments on Kurdish civilians, the accusations of chemical weapons against Assad were a fabricated joke. Additionally, Bashar's quick willingness to negotiate with the Kurdish separatist factions in 2019 was a highly generous and forgiving move in light of how the SDF spent years as a U.S. imperialist client entity scandalously para-colluding with ISIS to undermine the Syrian Ba'athist government.
Bashar al-Assad offered countless times the most generously practical concessions to his longtime critics and detractors, whose hard-hearted unrepentant swaths proved they were, at the end of the day, nothing more than thieving savages holding a degenerate 5-year-old entitlement mentality. The coup d'etat last year on Dec. 8, 2024, demonstrated once and for all that Assad's stubborn detractors were the mortal enemies of not only Syrian sovereignty, but the values of human justice, mercy, and righteousness, and anyone who upholds them.
The thesis connecting providential stability to Assad's legitimacy is sharp, especially the contrast between the 2021 election as a last off-ramp versus the full throated embrace of jihadist takeover in December 2024. The link to Paul's Romans 13 framework about earthly authorities hits becuase it forces an uncomfortable question about whether stability under authoritarianism beats chaos under fragmented militias. I saw similar patterns inIraq consulting work where the anti-Saddam crowd dunno how to deal with the fact that post-invasion sectarian violence killed more civilians than the prior decades of Ba'athist rule.
An interesting read. As One with no religion - was raised with lots of love and Ethics, but no religion, I will ponder this. Thanks!
Glad to hear, and I hope the larger explanation here might strike a chord with your own analytical verdicts, Amaterasu. To my admission, I rushed a bit when typing this article out earlier in the day, so I can mention a few more details here in the comment section if you perhaps find it of additional help to sum things up with extra clarity.
If You feel so inclined, please do!
Awesome, and sure thing: so basically, think about it as contrasting social contracts in terms of how "high" the bar is to jump over. Imperial Rome offered a very paternalistically crude and unpromising bargain for the residents of its empire: you're either a rich male to possess any standing, or you're left to your own means of survival, and if you aspire freedom, you will be ruthlessly tortured and crushed. And yet it was understood in the 1st century among the earliest Christians that the imperial Roman Empire was a legitimate temporal earthly authority that was to be obeyed so long as its dictates did not violate the conscience pertaining to the Christian faith.
In other words, it was a very high bar to jump over. Compared to ancient Rome, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a medium-low bar to jump over: aspirations for "freedom" apart from the Ba'ath ruling party meant the likelihood of a forced disappearance, being subject to torture, and so on, but full harmonious cooperation meant the ability to live a peaceful life in security and state-sponsored social services (at least before the post-Gulf War imposition of brutal sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children). For especially Iraq's Shi'a population, it seemed *during* Saddam's rule that accepting Ba'athist legitimacy was often too high a bar to jump over especially towards the 1990s, but many of them realized in the post-2003 era that the bar was only raised even higher under the American-Iranian overseen SCIRI-Badr proxy government: even if they were loyal to the new regime's security apparatus, there was no promise of safety by any means, and top-own corruption was rampant amidst sectarian wounds.
However, because Saddam was gone by the late 2000s, the question of whether most Iraqis would in practical terms actually be willing to return to the old days for the long run is a theoretical question.
Syria is different: not only was the choice only ever-clear as the dirty war dragged on, but the bar to jump over as low as it ever could get, because Bashar al-Assad fundamentally was a soft-hearted kittens-and-unicorns platinum-star human rights activist by traditional "tyranny" standards.
Unlike Saddam Hussein, who shamelessly resorted to collective punishment modes of brutality to suppress uprisings and especially through chemical weapon deployments on Kurdish civilians, the accusations of chemical weapons against Assad were a fabricated joke. Additionally, Bashar's quick willingness to negotiate with the Kurdish separatist factions in 2019 was a highly generous and forgiving move in light of how the SDF spent years as a U.S. imperialist client entity scandalously para-colluding with ISIS to undermine the Syrian Ba'athist government.
Bashar al-Assad offered countless times the most generously practical concessions to his longtime critics and detractors, whose hard-hearted unrepentant swaths proved they were, at the end of the day, nothing more than thieving savages holding a degenerate 5-year-old entitlement mentality. The coup d'etat last year on Dec. 8, 2024, demonstrated once and for all that Assad's stubborn detractors were the mortal enemies of not only Syrian sovereignty, but the values of human justice, mercy, and righteousness, and anyone who upholds them.
Interesting, indeed! I spent very little time studying all that so I appreciate the info and look at things!