Let's say that in addition to the dictators of Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya being overthrown, Bashar al-Assad (Syria), Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa (Bahrain), Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), and Abdelaziz Bouteflika (Algeria) are all toppled. In OTL, the Saudis sabotaged the Bahraini Revolution while Obama adopted the contemptible strategy of only giving pro-democracy rebels enough support to weaken the Assad regime, but not enough to topple it, despite the rebels' pleas for anti-aircraft weapons. What happens in an Arab Spring that's more successful?
AHC: More Successful Arab Spring
- Thread starter Sailor Haumea
- Start date
Then things are proper fucked in those countries.
As Egypt and Libya showed, once the ruling regime was toppled, there were very few people organized and prepared for such a massive change in the power structure. In Tunisia, they at least had a semblance of organized opposition parties since Zain Al-Abedeen didn't want to completely look like a tyrant, he just put ineffectual opposition, plus Tunisia had a more enlightened political system compared to other Arab countries. And yet it still came damn close to being overrun by religious extremists. In Egypt, only the Islamic Brotherhood was the organization big enough and organized enough to land on its feet once Mubarak was thrown out of power. In Libya, Qaddafi had left nothing of the command structure that wasn't dependent on him continuing to hold power, so the moment he died, it all fell apart and Libya exploded into chaos and civil war.
Bahrain is a traditional absolutist monarchy, meaning the removal of the Emir will result in no government, especially since the disenfranchised majority population in this case are Shi'ites, meaning they'd be opposed by every Sunni government in the region.
Syria would have collapsed into another Libya, but far worse, eventually turning into a radical Islamic caliphate and a continuing sore on the region for years to come until the Caliphate collapses from within. In the meantime, they'll be causing trouble in all their neighbors' territories. And the Syrian Free Army? Don't make me laugh; Al-Qaeda and ISIS beat them up and took their lunch money. They'd never be able to make anything stick.
Algeria would either turn into a military junta rule like in the 1990s, which just means a new strongman rules, or it breaks down into a massive Islamic radicals insurgency and yet more mass-killings, like in the 1990s.
Sudan is coming unglued already, so the Arab Spring coming to it earlier means either the Army rallies to place a new strongman, or the Islamic nutjobs take over and make things worse.
As Egypt and Libya showed, once the ruling regime was toppled, there were very few people organized and prepared for such a massive change in the power structure. In Tunisia, they at least had a semblance of organized opposition parties since Zain Al-Abedeen didn't want to completely look like a tyrant, he just put ineffectual opposition, plus Tunisia had a more enlightened political system compared to other Arab countries. And yet it still came damn close to being overrun by religious extremists. In Egypt, only the Islamic Brotherhood was the organization big enough and organized enough to land on its feet once Mubarak was thrown out of power. In Libya, Qaddafi had left nothing of the command structure that wasn't dependent on him continuing to hold power, so the moment he died, it all fell apart and Libya exploded into chaos and civil war.
Bahrain is a traditional absolutist monarchy, meaning the removal of the Emir will result in no government, especially since the disenfranchised majority population in this case are Shi'ites, meaning they'd be opposed by every Sunni government in the region.
Syria would have collapsed into another Libya, but far worse, eventually turning into a radical Islamic caliphate and a continuing sore on the region for years to come until the Caliphate collapses from within. In the meantime, they'll be causing trouble in all their neighbors' territories. And the Syrian Free Army? Don't make me laugh; Al-Qaeda and ISIS beat them up and took their lunch money. They'd never be able to make anything stick.
Algeria would either turn into a military junta rule like in the 1990s, which just means a new strongman rules, or it breaks down into a massive Islamic radicals insurgency and yet more mass-killings, like in the 1990s.
Sudan is coming unglued already, so the Arab Spring coming to it earlier means either the Army rallies to place a new strongman, or the Islamic nutjobs take over and make things worse.
Thomas Wilkins
Banned
You're trying to make a potential 1848-like situation look like a disaster. There are opposition groups in those countries, they're just underground waiting for the time to strike. Besides, they've already made a plan for their country in the future.
Don't bother, that person clearly knows nothing about the Arab Spring.
At the very least, they're unaware that ISIS and the Assad regime were on the same side. Assad literally let ISIS fighters out of prison and sent them into cities in an effort to turn public opinion against the Syrian Revolution.
I know it turned into a fucking nightmare.
Assad might have played the dirty game, and god knows he's a bastard like his old man, but the SFA are made of leadership who had never set foot in Syria in decades, and thus would not be in touch with the Syrian people. I know Assad pulled every dirty game in the book, but at least he seemed better prepared than the guys who said they were going to dethrone him in a couple of weeks.
Name me one organization per country, outside of the juntas and chain of command, that has the organization, the pockets, and the capability of setting up an organized opposition, or capable of advancing an agenda and setting up a new government. Almost every Arab country is set up so that the government is literally the only institution capable of ruling or uniting the people. Labor unions are limited in power, political parties are worthless outside of the one or two in power, and religion is either closely watched or tied to the ruling authority.
You're making the assumption that the Arab countries will turn into Western Democracies overnight. Europe has had centuries of revolution, development, and social and political progression to the point where human rights and political rights of the common people are not just an idea, they're a reality. And you're expecting this of Arab countries, who went from the medieval stasis of the Ottoman Empire to the colonial rule of France and Britain, before flipping over to the madness of the 1960s, military strongmen, propaganda, and socialist rhetoric.
The only organizations capable of forming a platform to advance their agendas were the Islamic Brotherhood, who under Morsi started putting their own in positions of power and were trying to create a Praetorian guard along the lines of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards of Iran - IOW, they were trying to replace one tyranny with another. Cue Al-Sisi throwing them out of power and reestablishing the military as in power.
Admiral Fischer
Banned
Sounds like what these delusional American decision makers believed before the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
One should recall that it was, ultimately, it was the military that toppled those regimes, not the unarmed protesters. The Mubarak regime collapsed the moment the military moved to depose the dictator. The Libyan rebels overthrew the government solely because regular military units joined them. Ben Ali fled Tunisia when the armed forces wouldn't follow his order.
The Egyptian Army was ordered by Mubarak to crush the protestors after police and hired thugs failed, and the Army, being a populist institution since Nasser's days, told him to fuck off; hell, they even fought the Presidential Guard when the latter tried to protect him from arrest.
Libya didn't so much have an army as a bunch of loose militias on Qaddafi's pay, as the Colonel had completely dismantled the military and political systems years prior. Libya's tyrant was beaten when NATO started smashing up his air power and let the revolutionaries finally advance into Benghazi.
Tunis' army gave Ben Ali the same response Egypt's army gave Mubarak: "We're not helping you, leave the country or we'll drag you to prison."
As for the military toppling/aiding regimes... it's been a problem since the 1950s. The Free Officers of Egypt overthrew an unpopular monarchy to put in a wildly popular and populist regime, something which was repeated in several Arab countries since (Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc...). And where it wasn't, the Army is often firmly hand in hand with the regime (Saudi Arabia, Morocco, etc...). As a result, it has less to do with the ballot and more to do with whom the Armed Forces stand.
Thomas Wilkins
Banned
Kinda weird for the army, usually the long arm of the regime, to turn their backs on their leader when he gave them a direct order.
It's a case of it being an untenable solution. Or one that would wreck the Army's status and credibility.
In the case of Tunisia, Ben Ali tried to sic the police on the protesters, but that only added fuel to the fire, so he turned to the Army, which he generally neglected and ignored. The Army realized it was a case of being dragged down with a lost cause, and they didn't like him that much anyways, so they told him to just pack it in and leave.
In Egypt, the Army is a populist organization. Many of its lieutenants and younger officers are mustangs, people who rose from the NCOs by hard work and training. And the rank and file are basically drawn from the people of Egypt itself. From Nasser's day, the Army was basically one of the best ways of advancement for the Egyptian people, and thus a bit more of a citizen army than other Arab forces. For the Army to turn on the people would be massively detrimental to the Army itself, and would basically destroy the Egyptian people's belief in its armed services. Mubarak was trying to bring the Army down with him whether he intended to or not (most likely he didn't, but he was too busy trying to hold on to power to care), and the Army decided that even though Mubarak was once one of theirs (he was an Air Force officer during the 1973 War), he had to go.
In Libya, there is no army, the Air Force was dismantled after the disastrous war with Chad, and all that was left was effectively a bunch of militias and mercenaries on Qaddafi's pay. They could either desert (which some did) or continue to fight for their paycheck until NATO dismantled the remaining air force and defenses.
I think you need to define success in this POD. Left to themselves, most Arabs will vote for an Islamic party with very dubious commitment to democratic principals.
For example, an Islamic could claim that President Morsi in Egypt was for a time very successful. Morsi gave himself unlimited legal powers, prosecuted journalists and attacked nonviolent demonstrators, change the constitution. Similarly, he would argue that Hamas was successful is another example of an Islamic party, with some democratic justification although not legal right being in power, once in power it has created an Islamic state and pretty well ruined a growing economic area. The same can be said in Turkey etc.
For example, an Islamic could claim that President Morsi in Egypt was for a time very successful. Morsi gave himself unlimited legal powers, prosecuted journalists and attacked nonviolent demonstrators, change the constitution. Similarly, he would argue that Hamas was successful is another example of an Islamic party, with some democratic justification although not legal right being in power, once in power it has created an Islamic state and pretty well ruined a growing economic area. The same can be said in Turkey etc.
You know this is two claims which are often made with zero evidence.
Yes Assad let a lot of political prisoners out of the prisons in 2011, which was demands both from protestors, human rights organization and foreign governments. And now you blame him for freeing political prisoners. Also those political prisoners didn’t join ISIS, they joined rebel groups in western Syria.
As for the alliance with ISIS, it’s deranged propaganda coming out of Washington think tanks, and anyone buying it can’t be taken serious.
Institution in the end serve themselves, and they couldn’t care less about Mubarak or even Sisi, only the continued survival of the Egyptian army as a institution. In fact the army was tired of Mubarak and his family being a step too corrupt even before the Spring, so the popular uprising was as good excuse as any to let him fall.
Eventually, the Islamic groups run out of steam, and people realize they had no more of an answer to the various socio-economic issues than their predecessors/rivals did. Hamas is losing popular support because people are realizing they have no answer beyond "antagonize Israel", and even Erdogan is having troubles. ISIS proved to be a vortex of insanity so bad even its staunchest supporters were faltering in its defense.
But then they run into the same problem; what next? They generally don't leave anything to replace them, thus leave us with the same problems as before.
There's also the fact many ISIS soldiers were former Al-Qaeda troops who joined the loudest and most extreme voice of the bunch, and were joined by many angry and disaffected European and Arab youth from outside Syria. And assuming Assad hadn't spitefully released them, would the SFA released them as political prisoners? Sadat did the same for many people Nasser and his bunch put in jail, and then the Islamic radicals went back and assassinated him in response. It's not just about removing the tyrant, it's about dealing with the fallout of his removal and his legacy.
ISIS are complex, it started a Jordanian terror organization, then it moved to Iraq under the Iraq War, and joined AQ, under the Syrian Civil War it splintered from AQ in Syria, which was mostly a local movement, and became ISIS. The reason it splintered was not because it was fundamental more radical, but because AQ in Syria was fundamental run by local Syria with local concern and it was based in Western Syria while ISIS was based in the tribal frontier between the different Levantine countries, a area much more similar to Saudi Arabia in culture than Syria. So ISIS was fundamental Trotskyist Islamist (international and global revolution),while AQ in Syria was Stalinist (Revolution in one countries), it was also why AQ not ISIS was popular among Syrian Islamist, while ISIS recruited American no foreigner and among the tribal east.
As for the whole ISIS-Syrian government, this build on the fact that the predecessors to Iraqi ISIS was some of the groups the Syrian Regime funded, under the Iraq War. This was a result of open talk among Neo-Conservatives in Washington to invade Syria (and Iran) after the Iraq invasion, which pretty much made both Syria and Iran fund every rebel group in Iraq, but as it became clear that USA wouldn’t invade Syria, the funding dried out. Syria had little to no interest in destabilize Iraq if USA didn’t plan to invade Syria (or Iran) and less interest in supporting local Sunni rebels.
Khanzeer
Banned
kind of depends on what you call "success " I see this more of a nightmare
unstable quasi-revolutionary states , rabble rousing leaders and potentially a fertile breeding ground for all kinds of jihadi elements
on the bright side most of them will fight each other just as viciously as any western state
Yeah, I can't possibly see how supplying MANPADS to the FSA could ever bite us in the ass down the line. IMO Obama had a bunch of shit choices with regards to Syria, The people and governments of Europe and The US had no appetite for more middle east intervention and as I said earlier supplying the FSA with advanced weapons was bound to end up backfiring. Once the Army stood by Assad that was game over.
Last edited:
I'm guessing the last time the US gave out Stingers like candy ended poorly (Afghanistan) so now they're extremely reluctant to hand them out, regardless of ideology or group.
Mubarak fall I would say had more to do with his attempts to create a dynasty, to the then Egyptian leadership this was a threat.
Iran Islamic government has been in power since 1979. Most Iranians know its run out of steam, and people there know that it does not have the answers yet it lives on.
Libya collapsed once NATO came in. The Libyan army would probably have rallied otherwise.
As for using the military to crush the protestors, the issue is that Armies have an institutional aversion to shooting their own countrymen.
Oh they’ll do it, as history has shown. But the focus on General officers and their corruption obscures the fact that the rank and file and even junior officers buy into the whole “defenders of xyz country”, and firing on crowds is something which requires some convincing. A leader needs to convince them that such an action is the path of least evil. In Syria, the military as an institution concluded that a crackdown, regrettable as it may be, was better than the alternative.
As for using the military to crush the protestors, the issue is that Armies have an institutional aversion to shooting their own countrymen.
Oh they’ll do it, as history has shown. But the focus on General officers and their corruption obscures the fact that the rank and file and even junior officers buy into the whole “defenders of xyz country”, and firing on crowds is something which requires some convincing. A leader needs to convince them that such an action is the path of least evil. In Syria, the military as an institution concluded that a crackdown, regrettable as it may be, was better than the alternative.