Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
It was obviously a different situation, but a similar thing happened in Iraq when the U.S. invaded. A lot of Saddam Hussein's soldiers just put on their civies and went home. It wasn't worth dying for a leader that had such low approval and was resented by most people.
I am sure that Assad had his hardcore supporters, but the cult of personality had fallen off significantly over the past decade.
|
It sounds like, by the end, Assad had no standing army of his own. At least not one that could have confronted an invading force. He still had the army outposts all over the cities, but those were only partially manned. It would have given his citizens the appearance of control, but Assad had no real military capabilities left. When the rebels came through, the small outposts manned by a few soldiers, sometimes without proper weapons, just gave up, or worse turned sides:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...ia-2024-12-12/
A big issue was the collapse of the Syrian pound. The soldiers salaries were worthless. Many just left. Sometimes officers sent the soldiers home, so that they could collect their salaries too.
Quote:
|
What was left on the ground was a Syrian army severely lacking in cohesion, all the sources said, describing multiple units that were undermanned because officers were accepting bribes to let soldiers off duty, or had told soldiers to go home and were collecting their salaries themselves.
|
With Hezbollah gone, all it took was a push from the rebels, as there was nothing left to defend with.