FYI, being a US stooge does not mean that a leader cannot have a progressive role, e.g. by dramatic improving standards of living, health care etc. "Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
"The government of al-Assad initially achieved some popularity for bringing stability to the country, which had experienced dozens of attempted coups since 1948. He also implemented many social reforms and infrastructure projects, such as the Thawra (Revolution) dam on the Euphrates River. It was built with Soviet assistance, and still supplies much of Syria's electricity. Public schooling and other reforms were extended to larger segments of the population, and a rise in living standards occurred. The government's secularism meant that many members of religious minorities, such as the Alawites, Druze, and Christians, supported Assad, fearing a return to historic persecution under a Sunni Islamist successor government to Assad." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafez_al-Assad
Of course, for ideologues and zealots the fact that millions materially benefited means nothing. What matters is ideological standing. Fuck this nonsense!
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."