(…and destroying whatever claims to sovereignty it ever had over it)

The indiscriminate bombing and shelling used to drive rebel forces from Aleppo is just one more demonstration that the Assad regime is absolutely dedicated to the eradication of any and all who oppose its authority and rule.

The fact that after five years of conflict during which the Assad regime has been unable to re-establish its authority over all of Syria with its own military resources, and has had to turn to foreign mercenary forces supplied by “Czar” Vladimir of Russia, and the Mullahs of Iran, to try to do it for it, speaks volumes about desperately the regime is determined to cling to power.

That such determination has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of its own people, largely reduced most of its national infrastructure to rubble, driven millions more of them into the misery of being less than welcomed refugees all over the world far from their homeland, and is still unable to pacify and retain for any length of time whatever parts of Syria it manages to gain by force (such as Aleppo), shows one can truly charge the Assad regime with depraved indifference to anything except…maintaining its power.

Which raises this question: At what point does such a regime lose any and all claims to “sovereignty”? And further, at what point under such circumstances is the international community prepared to no longer recognize it as a legitimate authority with “sovereignty” to rule over any part of Syria?

Unfortunately the international community in this particular case assumed a linguini-like posture under the pretext that any pro-active intervention in such matters would violate the principle of “sovereignty” by meddling in the internal affairs of another nation state. In short, it’s just another euphemism for not getting involved in the international version of a …domestic dispute.

Of course the real reason the international community has largely failed in this situation is because most of Syria’s immediate neighbors have similar authoritarian and even dictatorial regimes themselves While some are more flexible and less so than others, all, have little or no desire for having a free and open society as a neighbor, because too many are still entangled in a tight matrix of church and state. So it is no surprise that little or nothing has been directly done to help end this Syrian conflict. Instead, various regional and other powers have used the “proxy” approach to back whatever side they feel might be in their own best interest.

Some, like Iran and Russia, are using it as an opportunistic venture to gain whatever may gained from it, with no real interest beyond that, other than to have more influence in the region by doing so. For Iran, it’s mostly to extend sectarian Shia influence in an otherwise predominantly Suni region. For Russia, we’re not so sure it will gain much of anything from lending such heavy-handed air power support to the Assad regime. As of now, about the only thing that will result from that is maintaining power over a wasteland of rack and ruin, and destroying whatever claims of sovereignty it ever had over it.

Ultimately of course the Assad regime, like so many others like it, will come to a crashing end, and its hierarchs will be lucky to find themselves in well funded exile, instead of the kind of bitter bloody retribution they so rightfully deserve, as happened with the likes of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or the Ceacescus in Romania (among others).

If there’s a moral to all of this it’s only this: Sooner or later violent bloody conflict ends, but the residues of such conflict linger on in bloody revenge and retribution for a very long time after it ends.