Syrian Rebels Say Any Political Solution Must Start With Assad Leaving

Reason

Today, Russia and the U.S called for peace talks on the Syrian civil war, a move that was welcomed by Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN-Arab League peace envoy. However, Syria's opposition coalition has responded by insisting that any political solution to the conflict begin with Assad stepping down from power, something he doesn't appear to have any interest in doing.

From Voice of America:

Syria's opposition coalition has responded to a U.S. and Russian call for peace talks to end the Syrian civil war by saying any political solution must begin with President Bashar al-Assad leaving power.

Speaking to VOA by phone from Istanbul, Syrian National Coalition spokesman Khalid Saleh reiterated the group's longtime demand for a peace process to start with the departure of Assad and the pillars of his government.

Read more from Reason.com on the conflict in Syria here. 

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at [e-mail], or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Comments

[Aresen]

While I would enjoy seeing Assad leave (preferably in a box), I doubt it will lead to any 'solution', particularly not a good solution.

[Gladstone]

Well it worked out so well in Egypt and Libya!

[Too_Big_to_Fail]

There are way too many extremist and international dicks in the Syrian Kool Aid right now for any type of "political solution."

[DJF]

So they want victory first, peace second.

[Gladstone]

I guess killing all the Baathists counts as "peace."

[EDG reppin' LBC]

Aren't the Baaths socialists anyway? I don't want them to be murdered for their political beliefs, but I don't necessarily want them to "win" in Syria either.

[Virginian]

Baathism is national socialism. You know who else was a national socialist?

[Too_Big_to_Fail]

This is the problem that the US is facing. Assad sucks, but the most effective fighting force in Syria is basically Al Qeada. Throw in Iran and Russia trying to influence the outcome of the war, and the best option for the West is Assad keeping power (or an Iraq style occupation to ensure the "good guys" win). The devil you know, blah blah blah. Personally, I'd let it burn and see what grows; but I'm also a crazy isolationist freedom lover, so...

[SugarFree]

What's a realistic best case scenario is we get involved? Realistic, not unicorn erections and leprechaun turds.

I bet it's still a shit sandwich with corn and peas.

[LTC(ret) John]

If we get involved?

Not be the turd in the punch bowl, but even "best" ain't so hot. I suspect we would back some showy "we lurves democracy" faction and Assad gets the Ceausescu/Mussolini treatment or scoots off to exile in Russia. Slightly murderous payback by the victors then "elections" - all declare triumph and scoots, leaving the place to be a festering boil of Russian, Iranian, Turkish, and Gulf state proxies (and do not forget the Kurds) conducting protests, assassinations and such. Arab Spring Redux!

[BakedPenguin]

I don't see how our involvement causes anything positive. I'm not being cynical or snarky, I just don't see ANY potential upside to getting involved.

[Aresen]

Well, I am sure Reason could milk it for many thousand hits on the website.

😛

[Gray Ghost]

So the realistic projection is another Lebanon, only this time 30 years later and with fewer car bombs.

Well we've already got the 'embassy getting blown up' thing out of the way...

[siberback]

What's a realistic best case scenario is we get involved? Realistic, not unicorn erections and leprechaun turds. mirc indir