Government forces are still killing innocent civilians and the UN security council seems to be helpless in doing anything, as well as the western world, or so it may seem. The question we must ask is why is the international community is not doing anything to oust Bashar Al Assad, and why is he being given so much time after witnessing so much bloodshed by his regime? This is even more apparent especially after we saw how the international community intervened in the other nations of the Arab Spring. So why are they taking so much time with Syria?

The problem the United States have in ousting Bashar Al Assad will not just solve the problem. This will be looking at the reasons for why Assad still remains in power and why we see no signs of him stepping down any time soon.

Assad is a credible man in the western world. A man who is an eye doctor with a British education. He is well supported by the big business men of Syria and a man who has struck many business deals with the money men of Syria. America do not want to disturb these deals and it is imperative that any deals are done good and proper before Assad can step down from power. It is apparent that Assad is a well looked after man by the western world, as he has also looked after them.

Earlier this year an email to Assad's wife was sent by an Arab leader's daughter who is a good friend of hers, telling her that she and her husband should flee the country now whilst it's safe, and that all accommodation will be ready for them. This leads to suggestions that Assad and his family are being well looked after by the western world and they don't really want to get rid of him just yet.

In Libya we witnessed the West aiding the rebels on the ground with weapons to allow them to fight in order to topple Gadaffi.

This was so evident especially when the rebels were wasting ammunition in the streets of Libya. So again the question arises why are they not doing the same in Syria?

Another issue is that if elections were to take place after the fall of Assad's regime, there is no credible opposition party that exists. The leadership under Burhan Ghalioun did not help the SNC prove it has broad appeal within Syria's diverse ethnic groups.

The SNC has been criticised for not representing the full diversity of Arabs, Kurds, Sunni Muslims, Alawites, Christians, Druze and other ethnic and religious groups in Syria.

As a result the SNC have not imposed themselves on ground level enough to create any influence or support from the Syrian people.

The argument from some is that they have not rallied  behind the "Islamists" , and as a result the SNC leader Burhan Ghalioun had to apparently step down, especially after he has close ties with the Muslim brotherhood, and yet nothing came to fruition.

The word "Islamists" and Muslim Brotherhood is a common theme that seems to be branded in the Arab world especially in the Arab Spring.

In Egypt there is great support for the Muslim Brotherhood by the people.

During Assad's father's reign he made sure that the "Islamists" seized to exist, but now we see the West are trying to buy time to allow for the "Islamist" ideas to flow amongst the people of Syria.

The United States want to give the "Islamist" in the Arab Spring as much credibility as they can, which begs the question why they would want any "Islamist" influence anywhere near power of people, if they want to eradicate the Islamic idea from the Arab people?

The reason for this is because the United States understand that in order to make or implement any regime change they need to create parties to represent the people. Islam must be represented in those countries in order to implement the democracy America want in the region. This is because the Muslim brothers and sisters still hold Islamic sentiments that America, or anyone else, cannot take away from them. The United States understand this so they will use the Islamic sentiments of the Syrian people in order to coerce regime change. They intend to convince the Ummah that Islam will exist through democracy only for the "Islamist" parties to then compromise with their policies, in order to implement what the United States tell them. This is very apparent in the other nations of the Arab Spring, especially in Tunisia and Egypt.

The United States have been very distant in all the change that seems to have taken place in the Arab world, or so it may seems. This is because America  got their fingers burnt in the Iraq war. They believed that they would be able to steam roll into Iraq and implement democracy, but how wrong they were.

Time is what the United States needs as this will allow them to cajole alternative forces in order to make regime change. America need to create a credible opposition party before we can see any movement from power by Assad.

Islam must be represented in those countries in order to implement the democracy America want in the region.

It is also of interest that the Syrian people's war against Assad's regime is now refered to as a civil war by the media. Again this is significant because civil war is suggesting that this is not a war solely against Assad's regime, but a war between all the different sects in the country. This is important, as from these groups will arise a credible and responsible leaders, or representatives from
their own sect. This will allow for some sort of democratic elections to take place in the near future after Assad has gone.

In Iraq they never appreciated how many different tribes and sects existed within the country. The Shia, Sunnis and Kurds, aswell as many other tribes, were among many things that needed to be dealt with. They created and accredited a Shia leader, Muktata Al Sadar, who came out from the wood works. This allowed the United States to deal with the Shia and control them in an efficient way.

The other issue is the Iraq war stretched the American economic resources amid concerns of their own domestic economic situation at home.

America is generally not trusted by the Arab people, so America needed to be careful how they get involved in the Arab Spring without making it too obvious, aswell as too unnatural. As a result we saw nations such as Turkey, Britain and France taking the lead in the way of dealing with the leaders of the Arab Spring, whilst the United States were seen to be taking a back seat. The reality is the United States were at the forefront of all this, and still remain to be in this epidemic that is called the Arab Spring.

It also worth noting that Turkey is playing a big part in dialogue with these countries that are involved in the Arab Spring. This is especially the case with Syria. Turkey playing a big part has many reasons.

Turkey's location is ideal. Geographically, Turkey is in the best location to deal with their neighbours. Most important of all, Turkey is a Muslim country, and was where The last Islamic State was destroyed. Yet, they seem to have the perfect democratic model. The hope is that they will champion their model to these countries in the Arab world. It is also expected that these nations will listen, as it is their Muslim brothers holding out their hands to them.

Turkey also feels that now is the perfect time to get involved in world politics and show the world that they are worth their weight, or at least they think so. Turkey also have good relations with the Arab nations, especially with Syria. This is due to good economic ties, and it is believed that Erdagan and Assad had a good friendship between them.

As for Russia, despite  international condemnation over the violence in Syria, Russia and China have blocked the use of any military intervention by the UN Security Council and issued a joint statement reiterating their opposition to any imposing "regime change".

The Russians are good allies of Syria, having invested into their infrastructure, as well as having many other business ties with Syria. Russia supply Syria with weapons and are deemed to be guilty of supplying arms to the Syrian government,  so say the United States. The double standards of the United States seems to be ignored by the rest of the world, because the interesting thing is that many wars before this one, and even until this day, we see weapons being supplied by the United States to countries that are in civil war, or even war between two different nations, irrespective of wether it is a just war or not. This is especially evident in the fighting between the Palestianians and Isrealis and they have been, and are still, supplying weapons to the Isrealis to use against the Muslims of Palestine. Another example of this is when the Egyptian military were firing at the Egyptian civilians. Where did the weapons come from? They were supplied by the United States. So double standards is a common theme that is so apparent from the American government.

Russia is merely looking out for their own interests and as a result had blocked the UN in the earlier stages. Russia did not want to be the victims of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt where they lost out in the spoils, and as a result they felt they needed to stand their ground. They were not going to assist the western nations only to find out they were being dictated to, or what was theirs is no longer theirs.

The delay also arouses the suggestion that military action can not be ruled out. In the recent week the French President Hollande has said that military action is something that is a possibility. Clinton also touched on this subject in her meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister.

However, it is believed that this is merely for public consumption and no such military action will or could take place. This is a result of the West being under pressure to do something especially after the recent massacres and with the ceasefire seemingly impotent in it's own emphasis. However this does open the doors for NATO to get involved whom will only be in place to monitor like the UN, but not indulge in battle.

As for Russia, despite  international condemnation over the violence in Syria, Russia and China have blocked the use of any military intervention by the UN Security Council

It is apparent that Assad as leader of Syria will soon come to an end, but not without bloodshed. The Muslim brothers and sisters are being massacred whilst we watch through our televisions and feel pity for them until it's bed time. While we sleep at night, without any care in the world, our brothers and sisters are being slaughtered, which is concocted by the West. How much more of this are we going to take, before we open our eyes and wake up and realise that we must plan and move the Ummah before our Deen seizes to exist the way it should, and not the way the West package it for us?

Pity is not what our brothers and sisters need. We are being used and we do not see it. We think that a rally or petition or raising charity will solve everything, and then we go home thinking of our plans with our friends and family the next day.

Brothers and sisters, we need to wake up and do something. The solution is out there and it is what was brought to us by our Prophet Muhammad (saw) which is as clear as crystal. So I ask: why is it that we do not follow it? May Allah (swt) guide us all and make us victorious from the shackles of the West.  Ameen.
 
(From a specific view point)