Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Syria death toll now exceeds 200,000: monitor [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)28. Still think your idea has merit, but here is an idea from Juan Cole's site.
Could Years more of Syrian Civil War be Avoided by Comprehensive Talks with Iran?
Because the inner core of the Syrian regime is bound together by ties of sect and kinship, it is unlikely to fragment. And since it and its main constituency come from the minority Alawite community, it truly believes the only choices are to fight to the bitter end or face annihilation. Because the opposition is so fractious, it is unlikely to prevail, although it is improbable that the regime will be able to uproot it entirely from its rural and frontier strongholds.
As of now, a negotiated settlement is only possible if two conditions are met. First, both the regime and the moderate opposition the Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front, etc. would have to view the battlefield situation as hopelessly deadlocked, and they would have to do so simultaneously. After all, if there was a chance your side might achieve total victory, why bother to attempt to reach a compromise through negotiations? (Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, and the Islamic State would also have to be neutralized to prevent them from acting as spoilers.)
The second condition that has to be fulfilled to reach a negotiated settlement is that outside players the United States and other Western states, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Iran, and others would also have to come to the conclusion, again simultaneously, that there was no chance their clients could score a victory on the battlefield and that, in the big scheme of things, the battle for Syria was just not worth the cost. Otherwise, when your side is down why not try to restore its fortunes by pumping in more supplies, heavier and more lethal weapons, cash, and perhaps fresh recruits?
There is one possibility, albeit farfetched, that might enable a negotiated settlement to prevail. So far, the United States and its allies have been acting as if Syria were a chess game where a win for one side on a two-dimensional board means a loss for the other. Why not start playing three-dimensional chess? In other words, why treat Syria as a separate problem to be solved in isolation? Why not complicate the Syria problem by making it one of a number of issues to be brought to the table at the same time? This would increase the number of possible trade-offs and compromises, allow governments to save face through reciprocal exchanges, and make grand bargains possible.
http://www.juancole.com/2014/12/syrian-avoided-comprehensive.html
The author himself admits that it is not very likely scenario given how many actors have to arrive at the same conclusions more or less simultaneously but I though it an interesting idea.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well, it's hard to know what to do. There's so many factors, there's Russia
TwilightGardener
Dec 2014
#2
Many considered FDR a 'warmonger' before Pearl Harbor because he cared about dead civilians - even
pampango
Dec 2014
#17
The question is what the US can do that doesn't result in more dead civilians.
Comrade Grumpy
Dec 2014
#19
Agreed. "Heating up the civil war doesn't seem to be the answer." A military solution to the protest
pampango
Dec 2014
#20
Not genocide, unless you're willing to consider auto-genocide. This is a civil war.
Comrade Grumpy
Dec 2014
#12
Assad's tyranny caused ISIS. Without him, there aren't the same dynamics at play.
True Blue Door
Dec 2014
#27