Velvet Revolutions

There appears to be some belief revolutions cannot be stopped. In fact, it is generally assumed that when people "rise-up" against their dictatoral masters then they are the ones calling the shots. Such is the prevailing belief that people cannot be stopped once the momentum is flowering that even U.S. Presidents encourage the oppressed to "overthrow" their masters as soon as the time is propitious. However, history has shown that in fact it is "outside" forces or events that bring down dictatorships and not the "people in the streets" that bring things to their fateful and often anti-climatic conclusion.

When we look at the revolutions of 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovkia and 1989 in China, we see a clear pattern of the oppressor crushing all who dare raise their voice and hands against them. Why did these revolutions differ in that they failed to change the ruling government while the "Fall of Communism" in Russia was so gentle and uneventful after the Cold War? And why only in Russia in 1990 did the Communists simply "give-up" and not gun down their opponents? Communist China crushed their rebellion. Communist Cuba has crushed their rebellions. Saddam, who just loved Stalin so much, crushed his rebellion after the first Gulf War. Chavez of Venezuela, a devout marxist, is slowly taking back what was lost to that gentle uprising some months ago. Iran and Syria also have followed the typical communist model of shooting their opponents when they rise up even if the uprising is for "reform" of and not the overthrow of their governments. In other words, what we see here is the oppressed peoples are still dependent on the good-will of their masters.

The so called revolutions occuring in formerly oppressed countries like Ukraine and in the ex-soviet state of Georgia can still be traced back to the Russian Communists in 1990 who decided, for whatever nefarious reason, not to bludgeon their "hooligans" into submission. Did the Russian Communists suddenly take interest in transparent and accountable government after 70 years of horrid and opaque dictatoral rule? And if so, why only they? Romania may be a case in point when Cecescu was in fact overthrown violently because he did not want to go away silently in the night, thus the Romanian Armed Forces actually removed him wholesale. Note here, that it wasn't necessarily the people that overthrew him but Cescescu's Pratorian Guard that rid their country of his slaven rule.

What are we therefore to make of the "Cedar" revolution occuring in Lebanon? My friends, it pains me to say this but they cannot control what they do not own. They are not sovereign and thus are still slaves to Damascus. Assad still wants to hold onto power in this region of the world. Therefore, he will crush this rebellion like Saddam and other communists dictators before him did in their countries, unless and only if the United States directly contravenes in Lebanese affairs. Which leads me to my final point: Governments are overthrown by outside forces. The United States is waging the War on Terror, and Syria is a sponsor of terror and thus is directly in the firing sights of America. It is because of America that there is any "revolution" at all in Lebanon. As the winds of war blow through the Damascene capitol we may even see an "uprising" in Syria to overthrow Assad, but the moment can only be seized by America and not the oppressed because only the power of state-craft vis a vis a military confrontation can truly change things in a decisive manner in favor of those who desire freedom.

A slave still needs a savior in order to be made free. We have the power to free the entire Middle East if we so will it. If we desire it, then the oppressed will be better for it.