If Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich have their way, the American government will make sure that "Assad has to go."

And if he does go? Then what?

Because if he goes, that means the Alawites will be demoralized, and the Sunni Muslims -- more and more of whom are displaying, though the Western governments appear not to care, the views that the Ikhwan has always held, while the liberal reformers that the Western press made so much of in Egypt, and the American government hoped so much from in Iraq, are losing significance every day.  What would happen to the Christians, Arab and Armenian, in Aleppo and Damascus if the Alawites lose complete control? What would happen to the Alawites themselves -- do you think they should put their faith in guarantees from Sunni Muslims? From the Ikhwan? Where have such guarantees ever worked? What would happen to those Muslims who, being secular, are dyill willing to endure Alawite rule because they don't want rule by the real Muslims, with all that that implies for secularism?

Gingrich calls himself an "historian." He may have served a purpose in raising the issue of the invented "Palestinian people" though his brief remarks on the matter were not adequate, and he should, in attempting to undercut the phoniness of the "Palestinian people" propaganda effort, have been sure to eloquently present the telling evidence, in such fashion that no one would be able to dismiss or ignore what he said, as they have done with his statement since. It's the old business about killing the king -- when you have the opportunity, make sure you succeed. And though he was right, he did not do a good enough job. That's a problem.

And as with so many others, Gingrich's understanding of Islam, and of geopolitics, --to judge by his joining the Democracy-Now sentimentalists agitating for an end to Alawite rule in  Syria, which means a takeover by Sunni Muslims, not all of them Farid Ghadry or even close -- leaves something to be desired.