« In which I fail the cricket test | Main | The rogue state of Canada? »

August 13, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It's certainly looking like a win for you this time around, but I'm pretty confident I won't have to pay up twice. On the bigger issue, this looks interesting


I think you two need to define "in power." As you know from earlier posts, I would bet on Assad will in February control an organized military force that claims to represent the Syrian state and enjoys at least some international recognition.

But is that the same thing as "in power"? John?

I agree -- we probably do need to define it.

If Syria next March has turned into Greater Lebanon, and Assad is just one warlord among several, then I would call that a draw.

A nicer question is, what if Assad is a warlord, but he's the most powerful warlord? If he's able to defeat any single foe, and assert his regime's authority in any given area if he really wants to, but not able to defeat them all and regain control of the country?

Doug M.

John Quiggin, sir! You there?

The comments to this entry are closed.