Militarization of the Syrian revolution: was this the wrong choice?
| Date | 13 April 2015 |
| Pages | 101-111 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-03-2014-0011 |
| Published date | 13 April 2015 |
| Author | Armenak Tokmajyan |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Aggression, conflict & peace |
Militarization of the Syrian revolution: was
this the wrong choice?
Armenak Tokmajyan
Armenak Tokmajyanis a Junior
Research Assistant, based at
Tampere Peace Research
Institute, University of Tampere,
Tampere, Finland.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to question the effectiveness of violence, armed rebellion in this
case, as a means to topple oppressors. It takes the Syrian armed rebellion as a case study.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper empirically examines arguments about nonviolent actions
and their effectiveness and how violent action harmed the Syrian revolution. The paper adopts the Syrian
revolution as a case study.
Findings – The paper finds that the shift from nonviolent to violent action harmed the revolution. However,
the Syrian case remains hypothetical because the uprising tuned violent already in late 2011. Nevertheless,
based on statistical and academic observations the paper finds that the impact of the militarization has been
destructive without fulfilling the uprising’s goals.
Research limitations/implications – Because the Syrian conflict is a recent one, still ongoing, and there
is a time lag in the publication of academic papers and books, this paper necessarily draws on newspaper
articles and online sources in presenting the case study.
Originality/value – The paper looks at the developments of the Syrian conflict from a different
angle than the mainstream narratives. Furthermore, it contributes to the field of nonviolence studies
by investigating the new Syrian case, which has not been well-systematically researched from this
perspective.
Keywords Strategy, Conflict, Violence, Syria, Militarization, Nonviolence
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
Throughout history, human beings have developed various strategies about how to wage war.
By using and developing these strategies, empires, nations and tribes tried to enlarge their
territories and dominate other political units. Similarly, our ancestors developed peaceful and
nonviolent tactics to achieve their objectives. While the former receives a great deal of attention,
we do not hear much about the latter; the daily news that we read certainly concentrates more
on violence than on nonviolence. Is this because there is more violence surrounding us or
because we do not want to see the peaceful characteristics of the phenomena?
One of the reasons that violence is used is due to the distrust toward the power of nonviolence
and its methods. The distrust in this method, as Gene Sharp (2011a) argues, is because the
achievements of nonviolent strategies have been regularly ignored and dismissed. There has
been little attention granted by the historians to nonviolence as an instrument for change (Ash,
2011, p. 371). Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Syrian conflict became violent in late
2011; the masses did not realize the power that they could have had by using nonviolent
techniques to achieve the grand strategy. Instead, the anti-governmental movement turned
violent believing that violence is more effective. Despite the confidence of the international
community that President Basar Al-Assad’s days were limited, despite their sureness that
Syria’s“liberation” was close, now, at the beginning of 2014, President Al-Assad is still in power,
and rather than being “liberated,” Syria is destroyed.
DOI 10.1108/JACPR-03-2014-0011 VOL. 7 NO. 2 2015, pp. 101-111, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599
j
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH
j
PAGE 101
To continue reading
Request your trial