A few differences, though. Saddam Hussein was in control of Iraq, with no serious internal threats, when Iraq was invaded in 2003. After total defeat provoked by his attempt to conquer Kuwait in 1990, he successfully crushed a major Shia rebellion. He acted brutally & decisively.
Assad faced demonstrations in favour of democracy, & by utter incompetence, turned them into a rebellion which threatened his position. He acted brutally, but with no focus, indecisively, & tried to be far too clever, letting the Islamist extremists flourish unopposed to start with, to justify his claim that they were the main threat. By doing that, he gave Daesh freedom to become what he claimed, & turned them into an existential threat to his state. He was losing the war when the Russians started helping him.
The Western aid to the moderate opposition has been pretty ineffective, & I don't think it's had a great impact on the war. Western aid to Kurds fighting Daesh, & the (modest) bombing of Daesh, has probably had at least as much impact, & in the opposite direction.
The big problems with backing Assad aren't primarily his brutality & lack of legitimacy, but his duplicity, & even more his incompetence. That's not a combination that inspires confidence.
Hussein survived bloody internal feuding in the Baath party, & fought his way to the top in Iraq, just as Assad's father did in Syria. Both knew how to hang on to power against any internal threat. Nasty, but within their limitations, capable.
The younger Assad inherited power, having done nothing to earn it, & I think it shows. His impact on the military has probably been negative, appointing loyalists to command regardless of competence, because he lacked (having no military experience himself: he was fast-tracked through the military academy in his 30s) respect from the officer corps, so didn't dare leave independent-minded officers in place.
He might not be as bad as either of the Hussein brothers would have been in Iraq, though.
Assad faced demonstrations in favour of democracy, & by utter incompetence, turned them into a rebellion which threatened his position. He acted brutally, but with no focus, indecisively, & tried to be far too clever, letting the Islamist extremists flourish unopposed to start with, to justify his claim that they were the main threat. By doing that, he gave Daesh freedom to become what he claimed, & turned them into an existential threat to his state. He was losing the war when the Russians started helping him.
The Western aid to the moderate opposition has been pretty ineffective, & I don't think it's had a great impact on the war. Western aid to Kurds fighting Daesh, & the (modest) bombing of Daesh, has probably had at least as much impact, & in the opposite direction.
The big problems with backing Assad aren't primarily his brutality & lack of legitimacy, but his duplicity, & even more his incompetence. That's not a combination that inspires confidence.
Hussein survived bloody internal feuding in the Baath party, & fought his way to the top in Iraq, just as Assad's father did in Syria. Both knew how to hang on to power against any internal threat. Nasty, but within their limitations, capable.
The younger Assad inherited power, having done nothing to earn it, & I think it shows. His impact on the military has probably been negative, appointing loyalists to command regardless of competence, because he lacked (having no military experience himself: he was fast-tracked through the military academy in his 30s) respect from the officer corps, so didn't dare leave independent-minded officers in place.
He might not be as bad as either of the Hussein brothers would have been in Iraq, though.