Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
I have to agree that Assad is not going anywhere unless things outside his domain change (i.e. loss of support from Russia and Iran). Our interests here are containment, not intervention.

I will only disagree that legitimacy does not matter. I would argue that there is more than one type of legitimacy and Assad had done a very good job of cultivating a traditional ethnic Patron/Client system. He, is, for all intents and purposes, the King of Syria. This is a different tact then take by some self-styled leftist leaders who try to portray themselves as populists leaders in societies are still based on tribal/ethnic/religious ideas.
Exactly, there are different types of legitimacy and one size doesn't fit all, especially in countries composed of competing tribes, ethnic groups, and religious ideas (we can add economic philosophies also). Mike from Hilo pointed this out on a recent post in the SWJ Blog where he corrected some folks who implied Ho was legitimate and the Gov of S. Vietnam wasn't. S. Vietnamese forces actually fought hard after we left because they didn't want to fall under the "legitimate" rule of Uncle Ho. My point is the ability to apply force matters, and if the government retains control of their military and police then the vague concept of legitimacy (legitimacy for who?) often takes a back seat. On the rebel side which group is legitimate? Those who are affilated with AQ? The fundamentalists who want to suppress the Shia? There is a reason the military isn't deserting in droves, they're scared to death of what will happen if these extremists take over.