The Washington Post published an article entitled “Why did the Syrian civil war last long?”
The Washington Post published an article entitled “Why did the Syrian civil war last long?” The article tackled the reasons for the victory of the Syrian army “from the point of view of the writer”
“The war in Syria may be coming to an end,” said the writer “Théodore McLauchlin” .” Syrian forces advanced through rebel territory, and recently the province of Quneitra in the south-west”.
“It seems that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, according to many comments, is heading towards victory. The war is seven years old with hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of displaced people”.
“How did this bloody war last for a long time? How did Assad survive, especially early, where he seemed to be failed? What does this mean for other civil conflicts? Théodore McLauchlin asked in the “Washington Post”.
“In my last research, a gloomy answer was pointed out that one of the keys to the length of the war and Assad’s survival is that the Syrian regime has long pursued a sectarian strategy, placing key positions in the hands of certain members of a small religious minority. This strategy, which helped the regime in preserving its existence, kept him in power during critical moments throughout the war and outstripped the efforts of non-sectarian opposition groups”
The writer concludes his article by saying: Certainly there are several reasons to prolong the duration of the war. Perhaps the most important reason is the international participation, with foreign players such as Russia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Western Coalition providing funds and fighters to keep the failed forces (especially the regime) on their feet and making the already thorny negotiations with armed groups.