In reality, you could not locate a revolution in Syria using the Hubble space telescope — unless, that is, you are persuaded that groups such as Nusra and Jaysh al-Islam carry with them the hopes and dreams of the Arab Spring, along with the human heads they've been harvesting over the course of this conflict.The idea of a Syrian revolution is as fatuous as the idea that there’s a “civil war” going on in Syria. What’s been afoot in Syria since 2011 is a putsch financed and organized by outside powers, the U.S. included, to bring down “the brutal dictator, Assad.” Clearly, Assad is popular and will easily prevail in any future election. By most accounts, life in Syria was decent and free of the sectarian enmity that that jihadis brought to the table.
* * * *
The moral outrage of these champions of regime change is of course, and in time-honored fashion, selective — although no less egregious for all that. But making it even more contemptible is the fact they betray not one tincture of evidence of having learned any lessons from Iraq or Libya, previous and recent examples of regime change wars, resulting in both countries being pushed into the abyss of societal collapse and chaos, and out of which, in the case of Iraq, the monster of Salafi-jihadism emerged.
Moreover, when does the descriptor "civil war" become laughable? After the first 30,000 foreign jihadis join the fray? In truth, I don't know what the total foreign fighter contingent is in Syria so that number's kind of vaporous at this point. I do seem to recall reading that there were several thousand of Uighurs in Idlib Governate alone and its undeniable that fanatics and fools have arrived from Britain, France, German, Sweden, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to name a few places of origin. So substantively, far from a civil war. In fact, Syria's a lot like the Spanish "civil war" of the 1930s. Every pathology adrift in the world was focused like the sun through a magnifying glass on an obscure conflict but behind it came the terrible evil of WWII. What Western official acts like he or she has the least understanding of the parallels at work here, let alone the terrible slaughter of WWI that, in one view, involved just drifting into war?
The eventual result of the “Arab Spring” in Egypt was a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood but it fortunately gave way to a saner arrangement. Trying to make the war of aggression on Syria seem like some kind of hunger of the people for relief from the mad dog ophthalmologist is rank dishonesty. Rank dishonesty being, let it be said, the U.S. stock in trade in Syria. A good example: the Coalition attack on the Syrian Arab Army near Deir ez-Zor that the U.S. claimed was a mistake. It wasn't.
Mr. Wray focuses on the aftermath that would exist in the event of a jihadi victory:
It does not require you to be a fulsome supporter of the Syrian government to recognize that the alternative of Nusra or Jaysh al-Islam in power in Damascus is one that does not bear thinking about.
The death and destruction is unquestionably our responsibility as we have been enthusiastic supporters of the attempt to bring down Assad. If we had devoted 1% of our efforts to supporting Assad, vaporizing ISIS and al-Nusraqaida, and cutting off Saudi and Qatari aid, the putsch attempt would have been over in a month.
What comes after these Western dabblings in regime change is treated cavalierly in Western chancelleries if it's not ignored completely. In one instance, Libya, the attitude displayed revealed a deeply diseased mind. And that was a very senior U.S. official indeed, one who was not acting on her own. The U.S. was clueless in Libya and it's clueless in Syria. Calling something a "revolution" doesn't hide the grim realities.
 "Regime Change Propaganda on Syria Now in Overdrive.” By John Wight, Sputnik, 2/22/18.