© Unknown
The fact is, the mainstream media narrative for more than six years now has involved what George Orwell called Doublethink.[1] The oxymoronic notion of moderate armed opposition actually came to be settled upon as the media's euphemism of choice after earlier designations had failed to carry conviction. Initial suggestions of a 'democratic uprising' became hard to sustain as an armed minority of fighters, many foreign, were manifestly terrorising swathes of the population. In any case, the idea of an uprising has application to particular events rather than to a process of definite political change. Some people have spoken of a Syrian 'revolution'. However, even aside from the point that a revolution is usually an alternative to moderate opposition, the most cursory comparison with actual popular revolutions - think of Cuba, for example - reveals this to be misleading. The revolutionary change most credibly attempted in Syria - and through violent, not moderate, means - would install some form of sectarian regime whereby the tolerant secular society of Syria would be transformed into something more like Saudi Arabia. The other popular locution 'civil war', even if inaccurate as a description,[2] at least has the merit of including a term that cannot be confused with moderation: war.
Comment: This may sound like more of the same coming from Saudi Arabia, but there may be more going on than meets the eye. The Saudi crown prince is in a covert power struggle with the radical Wahhabi clerics and their circles of influence. MBS seems to have at least a degree of sense and understands the type of future the Wahhabis will bring. The question is if he will be able to implement all the needed strategies by going against the United States wishes.