I couldn't find a thread devoted to the topic. Thought about starting one up elsewhere but don't see much chance that we can avoid politics on this one so ... Here's a strategy page update focusing on the recent Russian efforts: http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/syria/articles/20150923.aspx Doesn't sound like (both from that article and from other sources) that it's likely to be resolved any time soon. Indeed it's a bit of a simplification to consider it a 3 sided conflict. *** edit for *** Here's another article on the topc: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/09/22/petraeus-syria-geopolitical-chernobyl-extremism/72619754/
There is no winning strategy, but Russian/Assad control in the south will be less awful than ISIL. I read another article this morning indicating that the Kurds are moving on Garablos, the last ISIL controlled point along the Syrian/Turkish border. If they take that city the Turks will no longer be able to supply ISIL and they will truly be in trouble. They'll be in a sandwich, with the Kurds to the north and Russia/Assad to the south and no source of supply. The Turks are playing a double game here, pretending to hit ISIL targets but actually focusing on Kurdish forces. All the supplies and recruits for ISIL are coming through Turkey. Ignoring the major players - Assad, Russia, Turkey and the Kurds, you have a bunch of semi-autonomous Syrian tribal factions who are not Alawites and so hate Assad, but also dislike ISIL. So, what happens in central and northern Syria? Do the Russians stay out or open another can of worms by trying to help Assad retake those areas? On top of all that, you have the Shiites (Hezbollah and various militias) fighting in there, backed by Iran. I'm just thinking out loud here, but this is going to continue for a long time. All of these people want autonomy and all of them hate each other and shift alliances at the drop of a hat.
I say let them hash it out. US should stay out of it. Assad is the lesser of two evils. The enemy of my worst enemy is my friend. After all is said and done, there will be a weaker Assad. If the US butts in, now we've swelled the ranks of the terrorists. Seems simple to me
I'm not sure Assad is really the lesser evil. At this point he isn't as much of a danger to the US but groups like ISIS are in the long run self defeating where murderous dictators such as Assad can enjoy conisderable longivity. Just how or if we need to get involved in messes like this is a very muddy question. IMO it depends a lot on what we want to do and whether or not we have a good strategy for doing it. On the otherhand some of the greatst success in Iraq were because of a less than clear goal and flawed strategies for getting there (wherever there was).
I respectfully disagree with your analysis, lwd. I think ISIS have shown that they have a cultural connection and can get willing support from extremists to sustain themselves significantly for an extended duration. Assad's regime, with its outwardly secular standing, is far more vulnerable to corruption and malaise. The West should never have supported the FSA or any other faction. The Turks will be no worse off than they were before the war, regardless of the outcome in Syria.
ISIS like the Taliban and Al Queda tend to foul their own nest in fairly short order whenever they are successful in establishing control of an area. They may continue to draw recruits from outside but they typically have trouble holding territory for any real length of time. With a little help from outside forces that time can be shortened significantly. Saddam and Assad for instance lasted decades and the current regime in Iran moderated at least it's external fanatacism although I'm not sure was ever quite comparable to the first three I mentioned. Note how almost all the Arab world for instance has united against ISIS and no governements openly support the other two anymore and private funds are drying up for them as well. That's not to say they won't exist for years to come but I just don't see them being significant players on the world stage for any extended period. On the other hand if you are measuring the level of pure "evil" I'll give ISIS the nod long term damage is likely to go to ASAD in my book but most would be domestic which may be a factor as well. As for whether or not we should have supported the anti Asad efforts I disagree. I think at least encouraging them was the way to go. However once it was clear that Russia and/or Iran were going to prop Asad up it was time to fish or cut bait. With regards to Turkey they are at something of a turning point IMO and the ISIS actions against them may well push them back from the increasingly religious nature of their current government. Not sure that would have happened with out the Syrian conflict. Likewise the increased sparing between them and the PKK is at least in part a function of the events in Syria. The Kurdish areas in Iraq and Syria uniting in at least a semi autonomous territory is also likely to have some long term impacts on Turkey but I'm not sure what they will be.
