Rich wrote:The deck was massively stacked in Assad's favour,
Syria has been under siege of the regime-changers for years. They have openly tried to topple Assad since 2006 and plans to overthrow him were drawn up in London and Washington probably as early as 2001. They have covertly sabotaged its economy and enticed sectarian hatred via their regional proxies.
The economy and the social fabric were under strain by more than 2 millions refugees from America's wars while the country suffered the worst drought in 900 years with 75% of farms failing and 85% of livestock dying between 2006 and 2011.
With Syria being attacked by the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey Qatar and Israel either directly and/or by dozens of their crazed Islamist proxy militias, with tens of billions worth of military hardware supplied to Jihadists drawn from all over World, how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that "the deck was massively stacked in Assad's favor"?
The Afghan regime crumbled under the Western-sponsored Mujaheddin despite massive Soviet support.
If the terrorists managed to hold on to suburbs of Damascus for so long, it means that the "butcher Assad" probably didn't use enough brutal force to dislocate them.
Other then the terrorists and their direct supporters, I can't see any Syrian seriously wanting the Islamists to replace Assad. There is obviously always discontent, especially during economic crisis, but that doesn't mean the people want to wage a regime-change war. There is nothing as fleeting as people's intentions. They want one thing today and something altogether different tomorrow.
To pin the justification for regime on such a fleeting notion as people's alleged intentions is ridiculous in the extreme. But that is of course exactly what seems to appeal most to @Rich. The crazier, the better.