"The Day After" is an expression from the Cold War, when nuclear war threatened to destroy most of the world, with only a few survivors the next day. There is a famous film from 1983 entitled "The Day After," as are dozens of books, other films, and television programs. Without a nuclear war, or chemical weapons, today there is talk about the day after in Syria if the regime falls or agrees to give up power. I see no reason to be optimistic. After Saddam Hussein, Iraq became an Iranian colony. In Egypt, all of the problems that Egyptians complained of during the days of Hosni Mubarak have grown considerably under Mohammad Morsi. In Libya, the mad colonel left five million armed people; the country has split, or they are splitting it. In other words, every instance of change in Arab countries since the beginning of the military coups in Egypt, Syria and Iraq and elsewhere has been for the worse. There is no logical reason to expect that things will go differently in Syria. There is an honorable patriotic opposition, as well as extremist fundamentalist movements and terror. It is a rare occasion for me to be in agreement with the American administration. The Sahwa battalions were true organized terror (we saw the video of their men ordering a boy to cut the head off a bound prisoner). If change is achieved with the least amount of harm, it will rely on the personality of a man (or woman) chosen by the opposition to lead the new era. There are many names out there, and they include patriots about whom I can speak, based on personal knowledge, or about whom I know, without there being any contact between us. Among the names are Riad Hijab, the former prime minister who left for Jordan, and Riad Seif, the deputy head of the National Coalition, who lives in Qatar and Germany. There is Asaad Mustafa, the former minister of agriculture who lives in Kuwait, and Samir Shishakli, the son of Adib Shishakli, the United Nations financial expert, and Walid Zoubi, a Syrian businessman who lives in the UAE. I will add Basma Kodmani, who is a very competent, patriotic person. The Syrians whose names are being floated for the transitional phase after the current regime face several problems. Here are three, which I believe to be important. First, there is no consensus or quasi-consensus on any candidate, which means that the opposition figure selected to lead on the day after will face rivals from among the losers, whether individuals, parties or coalitions. The second is that no candidate has a popular base that supports him and that will help him make painful decisions during the transitional phase. In comparison, President Mohammad Morsi can rely on the loyalty of half of the Egyptians, more or less. Third, Syria after a destructive civil war requires Arab and international support, although countries that now support the Syrian rebels do not work as one team. Instead, there is clear competition among them. The person chosen to lead Syria after Bashar Assad might find countries that support him, but he will certainly find opposition from other countries, which wanted one of their supporters for the post. The day after in Syria will not be as bad as the destruction after a nuclear war, but we are seeing destruction in Aleppo, the link in the chain between the cities of the Middle East, and fear the same will befall Damascus, the oldest city in the world. We can only remember those films and programs about the day after a nuclear war. The destruction in Damascus began at the Yarmouk camp. This is a misleading name, since there are no tents. I know it well and I see it as a kind of middle class neighborhood. People there are from outside Damascus but with urban sprawl, it has become a part of the capital, inhabited by Palestinian refugees and Syrians. The Syria of Hafez Assad, and after him Bashar Assad, built its Arab political capital through the policy of resistance and the liberation of Palestine. We have ended up with a regime that is waging a civil war, according to a report by the United Nations, and destroying a refugee camp and forcing its people into a second exodus. The regime continues to talk about foreign conspiracies, and Zionism and imperialism, and terror and fundamentalists. All of this is there, but the regime is responsible first and foremost. It has made its enemies' task easier, as talk of the next day predominates. [email protected]
