Jimmy Carter on Syria (New York Times piece).

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opini ... risis.html

I HAVE known Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, since he was a college student in London, and have spent many hours negotiating with him since he has been in office. This has often been at the request of the United States government during those many times when our ambassadors have been withdrawn from Damascus because of diplomatic disputes.

Bashar and his father, Hafez, had a policy of not speaking to anyone at the American Embassy during those periods of estrangement, but they would talk to me. I noticed that Bashar never referred to a subordinate for advice or information. His most persistent characteristic was stubbornness; it was almost psychologically impossible for him to change his mind — and certainly not when under pressure.

Before the revolution began in March 2011, Syria set a good example of harmonious relations among its many different ethnic and religious groups, including Arabs, Kurds, Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians who were Christians, Jews, Sunnis, Alawites and Shiites. The Assad family had ruled the country since 1970, and was very proud of this relative harmony among these diverse groups.

When protesters in Syria demanded long overdue reforms in the political system, President Assad saw this as an illegal revolutionary effort to overthrow his “legitimate” regime and erroneously decided to stamp it out by using unnecessary force. Because of many complex reasons, he was supported by his military forces, most Christians, Jews, Shiite Muslims, Alawites and others who feared a takeover by radical Sunni Muslims. The prospect for his overthrow was remote.

The Carter Center had been deeply involved in Syria since the early 1980s, and we shared our insights with top officials in Washington, seeking to preserve an opportunity for a political solution to the rapidly growing conflict. Despite our persistent but confidential protests, the early American position was that the first step in resolving the dispute had to be the removal of Mr. Assad from office. Those who knew him saw this as a fruitless demand, but it has been maintained for more than four years. In effect, our prerequisite for peace efforts has been an impossibility.

Kofi Annan, the former United Nations secretary general, and Lakhdar Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister, tried to end the conflict as special representatives of the United Nations, but abandoned the effort as fruitless because of incompatibilities among America, Russia and other nations regarding the status of Mr. Assad during a peace process.

In May 2015, a group of global leaders known as the Elders visited Moscow, where we had detailed discussions with the American ambassador, former President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, former Prime Minister Yevgeny M. Primakov, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov and representatives of international think tanks, including the Moscow branch of the Carnegie Center.

They pointed out the longstanding partnership between Russia and the Assad regime and the great threat of the Islamic State to Russia, where an estimated 14 percent of its population are Sunni Muslims. Later, I questioned President Putin about his support for Mr. Assad, and about his two sessions that year with representatives of factions from Syria. He replied that little progress had been made, and he thought that the only real chance of ending the conflict was for the United States and Russia to be joined by Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in preparing a comprehensive peace proposal. He believed that all factions in Syria, except the Islamic State, would accept almost any plan endorsed strongly by these five, with Iran and Russia supporting Mr. Assad and the other three backing the opposition. With his approval, I relayed this suggestion to Washington.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
For the past three years, the Carter Center has been working with Syrians across political divides, armed opposition group leaders and diplomats from the United Nations and Europe to find a political path for ending the conflict. This effort has been based on data-driven research about the Syrian catastrophe that the center has conducted, which reveals the location of different factions and clearly shows that neither side in Syria can prevail militarily.

The recent decision by Russia to support the Assad regime with airstrikes and other military forces has intensified the fighting, raised the level of armaments and may increase the flow of refugees to neighboring countries and Europe. At the same time, it has helped to clarify the choice between a political process in which the Assad regime assumes a role and more war in which the Islamic State becomes an even greater threat to world peace. With these clear alternatives, the five nations mentioned above could formulate a unanimous proposal. Unfortunately, differences among them persist.

Continue reading the main story
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS

Dave 23 minutes ago
Talk about a pipe dream. Calling for Assad to step down shows a complete disconnect with reality. Lets not forget that ISIS is not going to...
Trent NY 24 minutes ago
Carter's been a paid shill for the Hasemites since Agha Hasan Abedi bailed out his farm in 1976. Syria was part of the area the British...
Michael Spence E-L 26 minutes ago
After the chaos that ensued after the Arab Spring, I always thought it was a huge mistake to insist on Assad's departure as a pre-requisite...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Iran outlined a general four-point sequence several months ago, consisting of a cease-fire, formation of a unity government, constitutional reforms and elections. Working through the United Nations Security Council and utilizing a five-nation proposal, some mechanism could be found to implement these goals.

The involvement of Russia and Iran is essential. Mr. Assad’s only concession in four years of war was giving up chemical weapons, and he did so only under pressure from Russia and Iran. Similarly, he will not end the war by accepting concessions imposed by the West, but is likely to do so if urged by his allies.

Mr. Assad’s governing authority could then be ended in an orderly process, an acceptable government established in Syria, and a concerted effort could then be made to stamp out the threat of the Islamic State.

The needed concessions are not from the combatants in Syria, but from the proud nations that claim to want peace but refuse to cooperate with one another.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

Although I do not entirely agree with what Jimmy Carter has to say here and am deeply skeptical about the feasibility of what he proposes, I respect Jimmy Carter too much not to take what he says seriously.

In any case, its an interesting article from someone who has a great deal of experience as a politician and negotiator and in dealing with this region and these players in particular.

[Adam Reynolds]

This is not entirely surprising. The US problem has always been the line in the sand position that Assad must go. Unfortunately the political will to do anything about it isn't there, even after the chemical attacks. So the US position in effect strengthens ISIS.

As usual it ends up becoming a conflict between secular dictators and religious extremists.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd say its a good thing that the political will to remove Assad by force is lacking, because that might get us into a shooting war with Russia at this point (plus the US has enough budget problems and damage to its international reputation without another major war).

And weather you agree with him or not, I'd like to clarify that Jimmy Carter is not saying "Assad has to remain leader of Syria or ISIS wins", or anything like that. He's basically saying Assad and his friends have to be negotiated with, even if its to move to a new government (which should be stupifyingly obvious, yet here we are). So this is not an endorsement by Carter of the "ISIS or Assad" position. More a belief that we need to stop being too proud and stubborn to have a diplomatic resolution.

Edit: Perhaps the most interesting part of the article besides Carter's proposed solution are his insights into Assad's psychology and his personal interactions with various leaders/governments. That's the stuff you can't get from any random politician or journalist's tract.

[Channel72]

The depressing reality is that US alliances in the Mideast are pretty much set in stone, due mostly to economic/financial ties with the Sunni-dominated Gulf countries. Yeah, Assad gassed several thousand civilians (most of whom are likely now rallying alongside ISIS), but compared to the usual maniacs the US backs, Assad isn't even really that terrible. But alas ... he's Shia Alawite, and not Sunni, and therefore the US can't support him, because we've staked our claim in this endless proxy war between the Saudis and Iranians, and long ago decided to align with the Saudis for economic reasons. And that's not changing any time soon. It's actually kind of depressingly pathetic to listen to Obama (who usually is somewhat reasonable) come up with bullshit excuses for why we need "regime change" in Syria... blah blah blah. It's all a boring charade dictated by the latest meeting/phone call with King Salman.

[The Romulan Republic]

The depressing reality is that US alliances in the Mideast are pretty much set in stone, due mostly to economic/financial ties with the Sunni-dominated Gulf countries. Yeah, Assad gassed several thousand civilians (most of whom are likely now rallying alongside ISIS),

Do you have any evidence that most of the civilians Assad gassed are probably supporting ISIS?

Frankly, it sounds to me like you are trying to vilify Assad's victims in order to bolster the position that we should be backing Assad, which you seem to hold.

but compared to the usual maniacs the US backs, Assad isn't even really that terrible.

Morality is difficult to quantify.

You could measure it by body count, I suppose. In which case, how does Assad's stack up to various leaders America is allied with?

But regardless, it seems rather crass and callous, to say the least, to say that someone "...isn't even really that terrible." just because their are people with a higher body count. You don't win points for being only a murderer of thousands rather than, say, millions.

Practically speaking, of course, a murderer of thousands is less destructive than a murderer of millions, and you might argue that if we absolutely must ally with one or the other (rather than saying fuck it and turning our backs on all of them), its better to ally with the former. But if we're passing moral judgements on Assad's relative evil, I'd still say he qualifies as "terrible".

You want to argue that we should back Assad? Then have the decency at least to acknowledge the kind of man you think we should be backing rather than trying to downplay what he is. I think I'd respect that argument a lot more, because at least it would be honest.

This, incidentally, is one of my issues with Carter's article. I feel that the language he used downplayed Assad's atrocities. But I can forgive it from him because he actually has to work with these people, and so being a little diplomatic about them is probably a wise course.

But alas ... he's Shia Alawite, and not Sunni, and therefore the US can't support him,

I'm not going to get into a debate about weather we should support him. I trust my feelings on the subject, generally speaking, are already well-known, and I doubt either of us is likely to budge.

I will just note that Jimmy Carter isn't saying that we should, so if you are attempting to imply that his article supports your position, you are misrepresenting him. Basically, what Carter is saying, as I understand it (and I agree with it), is that Assad and his buddies have to be included in the diplomatic process. That's not the same as saying the US should fucking ally with him or even that he should remain the leader of Syria.

If you are disagreeing with Carter, that's another matter. I'm simply trying to be clear about what the article in the OP is saying.

because we've staked our claim in this endless proxy war between the Saudis and Iranians, and long ago decided to align with the Saudis for economic reasons. And that's not changing any time soon. It's actually kind of depressingly pathetic to listen to Obama (who usually is somewhat reasonable) come up with bullshit excuses for why we need "regime change" in Syria... blah blah blah. It's all a boring charade dictated by the latest meeting/phone call with King Salman.

While I am no fan of the US cooperation with Saudi Arabia's government, I think it highly unlikely that the US is simply a puppet having its policies dictated to it by Saudi Arabia. That's at best an oversimplification, at worst rabid conspiracy theorist trash.

The US government works with them when it does because it believes that doing so advances some goal it has, and Saudi Arabia's importance, while considerable, is surely not nearly enough to outweigh all other theoretical concerns.

Of course, the Saudi government collapsing could prove a tremendous boon to the likes of ISIS, so their's just as much reason to back them as to back Assad from a strategic perspective. That you seem to support one but not the other so vehemently suggests a certain bias and lack of intellectual consistency.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd say its a good thing that the political will to remove Assad by force is lacking, because that might get us into a shooting war with Russia at this point (plus the US has enough budget problems and damage to its international reputation without another major war).

So... what, are you saying the correct solution has been to say "Assad is unacceptable and we will only support his enemies but never him," while also saying "we're not going to work hard enough to actually overthrow him and allow control of the country to be consolidated in a new government capable of resisting Da'esh."

Because that's what we have now, and it's been a policy disaster and Syria is in chaos.

[Channel72]

The depressing reality is that US alliances in the Mideast are pretty much set in stone, due mostly to economic/financial ties with the Sunni-dominated Gulf countries. Yeah, Assad gassed several thousand civilians (most of whom are likely now rallying alongside ISIS),

Do you have any evidence that most of the civilians Assad gassed are probably supporting ISIS?

Well, actually - since many of them are dead, I concede they're not supporting ISIS. But, aside from the awkward way I worded that sentence, no, I don't have such direct evidence. I extrapolated that idea from what I've learned about the early resistance centering around the FSA. Initially, the movement against Assad was mostly coordinated by fairly secular elements originating from within the Syrian army. But, it was quickly hijacked by extremist elements who were always there from the beginning. Would you at least agree that some significant percentage of Syrian rebels are likely sympathetic to either ISIS or Al Nusra (another ISIS-like group)?

Practically speaking, of course, a murderer of thousands is less destructive than a murderer of millions, and you might argue that if we absolutely must ally with one or the other (rather than saying fuck it and turning our backs on all of them), its better to ally with the former. But if we're passing moral judgements on Assad's relative evil, I'd still say he qualifies as "terrible".

He's not winning any Nobel peace prizes if that's what you mean.

You want to argue that we should back Assad? Then have the decency at least to acknowledge the kind of man you think we should be backing rather than trying to downplay what he is. I think I'd respect that argument a lot more, because at least it would be honest.

I don't think there is any really good option, regarding the Syrian civil war. I've actually already laid out what I think the best option is, on SDN, but nobody wants to hear it - and it doesn't necessarily involve backing Assad. As I said, I think the US should deploy ground troops to Northern Iraq and retake Mosul, and then establish a permanent base in Kurdistan. The purpose of this would be to "quarantine" ISIS in northwest Syria, and cut them off from a major revenue source which is the oil fields around Mosul. Then we can sit back and just let Putin do the rest of the work - provided we give up our ambitions of removing Assad from power.

But that won't happen... so, I think the second best option would probably just be to support Assad. Our attempt to topple his regime via the FSA failed miserably, and actually backfired horrifically. Since we clearly have no idea what the fuck we're doing, it's probably best to just lend support to the one bastion of order in Syria, Assad's government. And I say that despite the fact that he gassed thousands of rebels/protesters, since the movements he is fighting against are literally 1,000 times worse.

But that second option won't happen either, because KSA won't have any of that, and we have too many business/economic relationships built upon their economy. You realize that the US wanted Assad out of power before he started gassing everyone? The US simply wants Assad out of power as a matter of "policy" - i.e. it is simply not our policy to support regimes that KSA doesn't like, or regimes which are connected with Iran.

While I am no fan of the US cooperation with Saudi Arabia's government, I think it highly unlikely that the US is simply a puppet having its policies dictated to it by Saudi Arabia. That's at best an oversimplification, at worst rabid conspiracy theorist trash.

I don't think the US is a puppet to the Saudis. It's more like we have a highly symbiotic relationship. Therefore we are always doing things with regard to the interests of the other ... and backing Assad would be a big no-no with regard to staying cool with the Saudis.

Our alignment with the Saudis is also a reflection of larger geo-political realities based around energy consumption: the Saudis are aligned against Iran (or more specifically, against Shia Islam in general, Iran being the epicenter of Shia Islam) for deeply-rooted sectarian and political reasons going back centuries. Since KSA is part of our "sphere of influence", whereas Iran is more under the sphere of influence of China or Russia, the US strives to align our policies around things which strengthen KSA, and potentially weaken Iran/Russia/China.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd say its a good thing that the political will to remove Assad by force is lacking, because that might get us into a shooting war with Russia at this point (plus the US has enough budget problems and damage to its international reputation without another major war).

So... what, are you saying the correct solution has been to say "Assad is unacceptable and we will only support his enemies but never him," while also saying "we're not going to work hard enough to actually overthrow him and allow control of the country to be consolidated in a new government capable of resisting Da'esh."

Because that's what we have now, and it's been a policy disaster and Syria is in chaos.

First, please clarify something: Are you arguing for allying with Assad, for fighting to remove him, or something else?

Secondly, no, that's obviously not what I'm saying.

First, I never said anywhere in this thread that we should support Assad's enemies. I'm not confident their's anyone in that part of the world we should be supporting militarily. And in fact my very last post specifically criticized the US's involvement with Saudi Arabia.

Secondly, I am not supporting a continuation of the current status quo (I'm not fucking insane). If I'm supporting any policy toward Assad, I'm supporting something more in line with what Carter argued for- negotiate with him and his allies to achieve a diplomatic solution and a transition to a new government. That's something we've failed at thus far, and if Carter is at all correct, its because we haven't really tried.

This is my position.

[LaCroix]

Actually, since Russia has decided to insert their dick into the situation, the US could simply pull out and let things go the way they will. Russia will take care of it (probably even faster if they don't have to tiptoe around NATO airplanes also in the area), and the US doesn't have to spend anything on. Actually, with the US sending less weapons and ammunition to the rebels, less will be "lost" to ISIS, which would also cause a quicker resolution of the situation.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's presuming Russia's military is any more effective than ours'. And if it is... that's kind of a problem for the US strategically.

But they could step back and let Russia try to deal with it. That would save us any cost in the short term except for wounded pride and loss of prestige.

Long term, however, it makes a major rival, Russia (as well as Assad and Iran), stronger if they succeed. But it could also make Russia weaker if it gets bogged down in an Iraq-style mess.

But I don't see that happening any time in the near future regardless of weather it would work or have merit, because it would mean backing down to Russia. Politically unacceptable.

Edit: Still, I admit that the more petty and less rational part of my brain derives some satisfaction from the notion of basically saying "Okay, we've done our share of Middle East insurgency fighting. Help yourself, Putin."

[Grumman]

That's presuming Russia's military is any more effective than ours'. And if it is... that's kind of a problem for the US strategically.

Russia's military is likely more effective at achieving Russia's goals than the US military is at achieving the US's goals, but that's because the US's goals for Syria are unrealistic. If it came down to "ISIS are assholes. Let's kill them." I think both countries would be equally capable of that task.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. America wants to defeat ISIS.

Do you mean that Russia is more likely to disregard collateral damage? If so, I wouldn't call that a point in their favour, and not just from a moral perspective. Seems to me that the more brutal you are, the more people ISIS or its like will be able to recruit to fight you. Unless you're prepared to go to outright genocidal lengths.

[Edi]

Edit: Still, I admit that the more petty and less rational part of my brain derives some satisfaction from the notion of basically saying "Okay, we've done our share of Middle East insurgency fighting wrecking the entire region and causing insurgencies and don't feel like actually fixing the damage we did. Help yourself, Putin."

Fixed that for you. The Syrian situation has been discussed in other threads and as has been said many times, it's a game of choose the lesser evil no matter which way you go. And outside of an independent Kurdistan as a major regional power (never happening as long as US backs Turkey against the Kurds) Assad is in the final analysis the least worst viable option from the current crop.

The current US Middle East policy is a mess of bullshit because the neocon empire builders in charge of it refuse to discard their fantasies in favor of actual realities and are more concerned with Russia scoring political points than actually getting shit done. Not to mention that the US is a firm ally of the Gulf states who have been fueling the Sunni insurgencies in Syria.

[K. A. Pital]

Because the US has been very "successful" in containing the greater Sunni-Shia split from going violent, thousands of people will die either way. Except the chosen model for Syria proposed by the US is even less likely to work than having the Syrian Army and Assad take most of the country back and keep that rump state while dealing with a permanent islamist insurgency near the Syria-Iraq border. And that is what people were trying to explain to you, TRR. It is not just about disregarding civilian casualties, this is about maintaining the country. Syria effectively ceased to exist as a country. A faction of islamist rebels will never be able to unite it; no matter if that faction is moderate or batshit crazy like ISIS. That is why what the US, Turkey and their Gulf buddies are proposing as "solution"... only means the end of Syria as a nation and a permanent Shia-Sunni-Salafist civil war - like in Iraq.

[The Romulan Republic]

Edit: Still, I admit that the more petty and less rational part of my brain derives some satisfaction from the notion of basically saying "Okay, we've done our share of Middle East insurgency fighting wrecking the entire region and causing insurgencies and don't feel like actually fixing the damage we did. Help yourself, Putin."

Fixed that for you. The Syrian situation has been discussed in other threads and as has been said many times, it's a game of choose the lesser evil no matter which way you go. And outside of an independent Kurdistan as a major regional power (never happening as long as US backs Turkey against the Kurds) Assad is in the final analysis the least worst viable option from the current crop.

The current US Middle East policy is a mess of bullshit because the neocon empire builders in charge of it refuse to discard their fantasies in favor of actual realities and are more concerned with Russia scoring political points than actually getting shit done. Not to mention that the US is a firm ally of the Gulf states who have been fueling the Sunni insurgencies in Syria.

I'm not saying we really should just leave it to Russia, though as I've said before, I don't feel the blame can be put completely on America. The Middle East is fucking full of scumbags who have caused a great deal of misery, and I'm not inclined to give any of them a free pass.

However, the failures of the American government, particularly in Iraq, are partly responsible for the catastrophy in Syria, and I don't think anyone here is disagreeing. And even if they weren't, I would disagree with the most powerful nation in the world doing nothing to help resolve one of the world's greatest crises out of self-interest and spite.

But I would like to know why you feel that Carter's position in favour of negotiating with Assad and company to achieve a diplomatic solution and a transition to a new Syrian government, as discussed in the article I posted, is infeasible and/or inadvisable. I presume you feel that it is if you are arguing that Assad perpetually remaining in power is the best option.

Also, I sincerely hope that you are not insinuating that I share the views of "...the neocon empire builders...", because I would consider that an ad hominem and a straw man. I don't like the governments of Russia, Iran, and Syria, it is true, and I feel that the US has an obligation to do something in this situation (as, it seems, you do). But I feel that war should be the last resort, and I do not support military action just to expand American power (nor, in fact, do I support US military forces in Syria due to the risk of conflict with Russia).

Lastly, I wouldn't use the term "empire builder" to describe Barack Obama. At least, no more than US politicians in general. Incompetent and corrupt when it comes to Middle East policy, though? Absolutely. And the rest of your criticisms of US policy in Syria are more or less spot on.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because the US has been very "successful" in containing the greater Sunni-Shia split from going violent, thousands of people will die either way.

I gather you're being sarcastic. Because the Sunni-Shia split sure as hell is obviously very violent.

Except the chosen model for Syria proposed by the US is even less likely to work than having the Syrian Army and Assad take most of the country back and keep that rump state while dealing with a permanent islamist insurgency near the Syria-Iraq border. And that is what people were trying to explain to you, TRR

Back to the "ISIS or Assad" line.

Also, regardless of weather any of what you said here is correct, I am not supporting the current US policy in Syria, as I believe I have already stated in this thread. That it is not working satisfactorily is pretty much self-evident.

This is part of why I am reluctant to discuss the topic of Syria on this board. It seems that people feel entirely free to blatantly misrepresent my positions on the subject.

It is not just about disregarding civilian casualties, this is about maintaining the country. Syria effectively ceased to exist as a country. A faction of islamist rebels will never be able to unite it; no matter if that faction is moderate or batshit crazy like ISIS. That is why what the US, Turkey and their Gulf buddies are proposing as "solution"... only means the end of Syria as a nation and a permanent Shia-Sunni-Salafist civil war - like in Iraq.

Okay, that's at least a relatively coherent argument for why what Carter proposes is unworkable.

I disagree that no one but Assad can unite Syria, however, because I do not believe that Assad can do it, regardless of what the other options are and weather they can succeed. Their are too many people their who hate his guts, the country is a wreck, and Assad has already shown he can't hold onto the country without massive amounts of foreign aid (hell, even with massive amounts of foreign aid). To me, saying no one but Assad can unite Syria is effectively saying that Syria cannot be saved.

As much as I am loath to say it, I wonder if the best idea, in theory, is to partition Syria (not that I expect anyone to go for that). Your thoughts on that?

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course, a counter argument immediately occurs. If Syria is partitioned, we might simply end up with a war between countries rather than a war within a country.

[LaCroix]

Partitioning Syria? Into what?
Everyone keeps what they have?
That would mean 3 entities - Kurdistan, Syria(Assad held) and an Islamic State (Isis held). No one else holds significant territory.

Which means that the Islamic state would continue waging war with the other two and Irak, to expand. As a united Islamic state is their goal, and once they stop expanding, their state would fail for not being able to govern and prosper. They need perpetual war to exist.
And Turkey would never allow a Kurdistan to exist, and probably wage war against them (if they can't prevent it from happening).
The most stable part in that scenario would be the Assad held remaining Syria.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, you are right TRR, it is sarcasm.

And what you seem to miss is that most of the groups lack the functional attributes of a government (a functioning bureaucracy, no matter how dull this sounds). Letting them run the Sunni part of Syria as a real country may be an option, but this option does not guarantee they will be able to manage it. Everything that happened in Egypt, Libya, showed that islamists are terrible at governing (even if good at fighting). ISIS is running efficiently because it could tap a huge pool of Iraq's Baathist specialists that the US so unwisely left to the mercies of the "market" after ousting Saddam. Syria's bunch of Gulf-funded jackasses don't have even that (and many of them are ideologically similar to ISIS anyway).

I have questioned their ability to run the country or part of a country. Kurdish rebels and paramilitaries in Iraq and Syria have shown that they can, in fact, manage the territories in a sane way. Assad's government, dislikeable as it is, is a typical Baathist dictatorship with a record of managing Syria for years and a functioning bureaucracy. The only people who have shown a complete inability to govern are the Sunni islamists, and no matter moderate as Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or batshit like ISIS affiliates and Gulf State radicals in Libya, the track record of the Sunni "rebels" in government has been so far essentially a negative value.

It is not a simple "ISIS or Assad" but rather the admission that without a tradition of bureaucratic administration and a pool of skilled (former) Baath officials the end result would be a failure.

As for the partitioning of Syria... This may solve some issues, but not the one outlined above.

[The Romulan Republic]

Partitioning Syria? Into what?
Everyone keeps what they have?
That would mean 3 entities - Kurdistan, Syria(Assad held) and an Islamic State (Isis held). No one else holds significant territory.

Ideally, I would try to negotiate for Assad (or preferably his successor) to keep those parts of the country that heavily support his regime, while areas that are non-ISIS but anti-Assad (weather Kurdish, rebel-held, or rebel-sympathizing but currently under Assad's control) to be allowed form their own government or governments.

ISIS territory, once retaken, could be partitioned along similar lines, or simply remain in the hands of whoever recaptured it.

Of course, this is just off the top of my head. I expect in practice it would be a lot more complicated if not practically unworkable.

Which means that the Islamic state would continue waging war with the other two and Irak, to expand. As a united Islamic state is their goal, and once they stop expanding, their state would fail for not being able to govern and prosper. They need perpetual war to exist.

Well, if we could get the others to stop fighting, then at least everyone could focus on smashing IS, which seems to be about the only thing that pretty much everyone other than IS does agree on.

And Turkey would never allow a Kurdistan to exist, and probably wage war against them (if they can't prevent it from happening).
The most stable part in that scenario would be the Assad held remaining Syria.

Oh, I know Turkey probably wouldn't go for it. I didn't say it was politically practical, just that it might be the best idea in theory.

K. A. Pital, I'll withhold any further comment on weather your summation of the situation is correct and presume, for the sake of argument, that it is. My question then, as a matter of curiosity as much as practicality, is this:

How does a nation develop a functional bureaucracy? What sort of political and structural changes would have to occur to allow one to flourish? And can you recommend any good sources of information on the subject? Far from dull, it actually sounds quite interesting.

[Grumman]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. America wants to defeat ISIS.

Do you mean that Russia is more likely to disregard collateral damage?

Not really. I mean that a campaign that destroys ISIL but leaves Syria to fall into the hands of Assad is of no concern to Russia, but it ruins America's dream of regime change against Assad.

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting update that has some bearing on the issues of who we are prepared to negotiate with:

https://theweek.com/speedreads/585450/i ... -civil-war

Russia extended an invitation to Iran on Monday asking the nation to join U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and top European and Arab diplomats in seeking an end to the Syrian civil war. The talks, which are held in Vienna, have thus far excluded Iran, who backs Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government.

Talks in past weeks have remained divisive, with the United States and allies saying Assad would need to leave power at the end of a political transition process; Russia and Iran disagree. With Iran in attendance, peace talks are expected to continue on Friday and expand to additionally include Britain, France, Germany, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates. Jeva Lange

Edited to fix the link.

[Channel72]

I am getting so fucking tired of listening to Washington dictate who should be in power in the Middle East. The USA has zero fucking clue about who should be in power. I mean, literally less than zero percent of a clue.

We fucked up Iraq and Libya so fucking bad that even Donald Trump knows it. And now we're like, no... Assad just can't be in power because he's evil or whatever (i.e. our precious Gulf allies don't like him because he doesn't believe Mohammed's successor was supposed to be Ali or some bullshit that happened 1400 years ago, and he's also Ba'athist which is literally the same as being a Nazi, right??) Good thing he actually gassed a few thousand people, so the USA doesn't have to work too hard to find excuses to oppose him... I mean, we wouldn't want John Kerry to have to stay up too late past his bedtime brainstorming with King Salman over Skype ... I mean, the 7 hour time difference and all is just fucking annoying, and Kerry always looks tired... and King Salman needs to get back to pretending that he doesn't have a huge supply of Macallan 1926 in his palace.

[K. A. Pital]

K. A. Pital, I'll withhold any further comment on weather your summation of the situation is correct and presume, for the sake of argument, that it is. My question then, as a matter of curiosity as much as practicality, is this:

How does a nation develop a functional bureaucracy? What sort of political and structural changes would have to occur to allow one to flourish? And can you recommend any good sources of information on the subject? Far from dull, it actually sounds quite interesting.

Well, for starters, the movement that claims a right to government should have been operating as a party/political movement for some time, it should have all the administrative branches of a normal government and some experience in distributing material means and delegating responsibilities, as well as having a cadre reserve with the necessary technical expertise and/or the money and ideas which would draw such specialists under their banners. I would advise reading some books on failed states - how weak states become failed states, how warlords or embattled governments can restore power, control and security and recreate the nation-state. Some history of more successful partisan movements that created a lasting government (Viet Cong, for example). The problem with all the ISIS-lite movements in Syria is that they severely lack leadership and skilled professionals (though get plenty of cash from the Gulf), and are quite corrupt. To them the war is not just means to an end but also the end - for many. Because they keep getting the cash while they fight, but they will not get it if they stop fighting. Civilian administration has not been their strong side. Libya is a prime example of a mix of islamist rebels utterly failing at keeping the country from failure and dismemberment even in the first year of "government". This is with Qaddafi gone. In Syria, Assad is not gone and the failure of the rebels is even more profoundly evident, but even if Assad is killed, the continuing civil war scenario is very clearly seen ahead. Iraq and Libya failed at national consensus and Syria is unlikely to be an exception. Reasons are many, but the deep sectarian divisions and lack of expertise on part of the movements that came to power in the nations are the most important ones.