Political discourse on what is taking place in Syria seems to be in the language of a different age. It is discourse that employs notions of group loyalty that go back to an era before the establishment of the state as the embodiment of the will of a group or groups, who share a social contract that unifies all sects and ethnic groups under a law that protects individual and group freedoms. The funny thing is that such discourse brings together Neoliberals (Postmodernists) and those engulfed in the past; “enlightened" Islamists – such as the Muslim Brotherhood – and those who seek to return to centuries past. It is enough to read (readers are few in the age of satellite television) or listen to the words of Ahmet Davutoğlu or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or Ayman Al-Zawahiri, or Mohamed Morsi, or Adnan Al-Aroor, for there to appear pages from ages past drenched in backwardness in knowledge and even in language – pages that distance themselves from the great accomplishments achieved by Muslims and Arabs, and return to ages in which prevailed despotism and tyranny, as well as religious and political feudalism. This is what Erdoğan borrowed in one of his speeches from a Turkish poet: “Mosques are our barracks, Domes our helmets, Minarets our bayonets, Believers our soldiers. This holy army guards [our] religion" In parallel to, or in support of, this tense discourse is a Neoliberal discourse that has been, and is being, used by Arabs, Europeans and Americans, justifying and looking up to the former, and adding to it a touch of modernity – such as the rights of minorities and of people to determine their fate and to choose the kind of government they want, or impose the government the United States wants, as took place in Iraq (none more than the theorists of the war on Mesopotamia and those who justify it), or as is now taking place in Libya, or as might take place tomorrow in Syria if work continues to be done from abroad and from within to dismantle society and the state; from abroad under the pretext of “liberating Syria" (Joe Biden's plan), and from within – in collaboration with such actors from abroad – under the pretext of the hegemony of a sectarian minority over the majority. It is the mentality and the language of invasion, parallel to the mentality of Colonialism, which is also based on invasion. The justifications are old and ready to be used in both cases. In the former case, those asking for change have no discourse but that of religion to turn sects against one another. They have no vision for how to achieve social development, which will require a long time, and a peaceful movement that would lead to building a state based on citizenship over the ruins of tyranny, without destroying what Syrians have built and paid dearly for over several decades. Such a peaceful vision has been expressed by leaders of the National Coordination Committee (NCC) on the domestic scene, or from abroad, among them for example Hassan Abdel Azim, Haitham Manaa and Munther Khaddam. The discourse of the NCC is a comprehensive one, encompassing the complexities of Syrian society, and one that admits that it is impossible to bring about change or to eradicate the opposition through the use of force. Manaa holds against the “Mujahideen" coming from Arab and non-Arab countries their lack of knowledge of Syria's diverse society, with which they deal as if it were their own society, unified in religion and confession, viewing anyone who disagrees with their views as “infidels" and “unbelievers" whose killing is a religious duty meant to restore the past by doing away with the present and the future. As for the opposition abroad, with its Secularists, “Muslim Brethren" and Liberals, it is participating with the “Mujahideen", the Americans, Turkey and others in the discourse of invasion that seeks change now, even if it leads to destroying all of the country's civilian and military institutions, demolishing all of its infrastructure and doing away with the state, in addition to changing the regime. This explains its constant calls for military intervention, whether by NATO, the US or Turkey. And once the state has been destroyed, they will find nothing with which to fulfill their dreams.
