I have been reading and hearing the so called experts saying Bashar Assad is going to fall in a matter of weeks for well over a year now. Now this article claims the Syrian Army isn't capable of fighting the rebels because it was training for the wrong war (terribly flawed observation on a number of levels), yet the Syrian military has been holding the line for two years now (more if you consider previous insurgencies in Syria) despite the expert claims they should have failed months ago. Do global liberals who embrace our COIN doctrine and the U.S. view on "The End of History" confuse wishful thinking with reality?

I suspect Assad will eventually fall, but has long has he has control of his military there is little risk that happening in the near term unless there is more foreign intervention. Armies composed of conscripts have been winning conflicts for years despite not being as well trained as professional forces. Put all the political theories aside to include legitimacy and look at the effective application of force and I don't see any side achieving a decisive advantage, and doubt the rebels can gain much more ground without more support, and/or Assad is effectively isolated from external support (Russia, Iran, others). That all changes is Assad loses control of his military much like Mubarak did.

Syria's military has suffered since the collapse the USSR, but it is still a relatively powerful military. The link below compares Syria to Iraq, but the date of the data is questionable.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...pare+Countries

Not a insignificant Army relative to the region or the threat.

http://www.voanews.com/content/syria...s/1212985.html

Experts said President Bashar al-Assad’s army - estimated at between 200,000 and 250,000 troops - is by regional standards a highly-capable military force.

"When you compare it to neighboring states such as Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, it is one of the largest forces," said Aram Nerguizian, a Syria expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It does have pockets of excellence."
then back in Sep 2011

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....er-than-libya/

Warning: Syria is much stronger than Libya

But Syria is an altogether different target in military terms, too.

First, it’s simply more powerful. Syria’s armed forces are four times the size of Libya’s, and its personnel per capita and total military spending are both one-third higher. President Assad can draw on thousands more tanks than could Colonel Gaddafi (including twice as many advanced T-72s) and a thousand more artillery pieces.
Libyan rebels were divided by tribe, region, ideology and ethnicity. But Syria’s rebels are even more fractured. Lebanon’s prolonged civil war – in which the US, Syria and Israel all intervened – is a cautionary tale: backing one party to a multifaceted conflict is more complex, and possibly counterproductive, than working with a rebel alliance like Libya’s which is at least loosely held together by a political structure and lacking sectarian divisions.
Finally, it is worth thinking through the implications of a loyal army. Syria’s elite units and officer corps are dominated by the Alawi sect, to which the Assad dynasty belongs. They have neither disintegrated nor turned on Assad. In Libya, a very large portion of the army, particularly in the east, melted away at the beginning of the conflict.