In a civil war, a society is divided into armed camps that, initially at

10 In a civil war, a society is divided into armed camps that, initially at least, are roughly the same size. That’s not the case in Syria, where the uprising is backed by an overwhelming majority against a government that’s dominated by a small minority — the Ba’ath Party. To make matters worse, the Ba’ath is dominated by the Nusairi (Alawite) religious minority, a mere 5 percent of the population. Thus, Syria’s is a nationwide revolution against a minority regime. Almost all Syrians agree that the situation is untenable. Assad’s policy of rule by massacre has few supporters outside his clan. Judging by the revolution’s most popular slogan — “Assad Get Out!”— a majority may support demands for Assad to stand down, as suggested by Jordan’s King Abdullah. Nevertheless, the Assad clan still controls enough military and financial assets to continue its rule-by-massacre strategy. The result could be the disintegration of the Syrian army and the emergence of armed groups beyond the control of either the government or the Syrian National Council, the opposition’s umbrella organization. That could lead to violence spilling into neighboring countries, especially Iraq and Lebanon. Rather than speculating about a civil war, the Arab League and the international community should focus on the dangers that the Syrian situation poses for regional peace. A Franco-British resolution on Syria won a majority at the UN Security Council last month but was killed by Russian and Chinese vetoes. The Security Council should take up the issue again — this time to debate the threat to the region. Last month, Russia and China tried to justify their vetoes by claiming that the Arab states were divided over Syria. This wasn’t true then and is less so now. The Arab League has suspended Syria’s membership and condemned the rule-by-massacre policy. Arab HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031950