Implying that there MAY be several solutions within EVENTUAL reach to turn Syria into something it can never be.
Astonishing that the neocon dream never dies.
“A good way forward for President Trump and his national security team is to now leverage the missile strike to force Assad to the negotiation table in order to establish a reasonable path to peace.”
The missile strike can be leveraged, but it will not be leverage that can or will change Assad’s position at the negotiating table, which is no different than the fact that the “Syrian opposition” - as fragmented as they are, is equally unwilling to make a major concession toward peace.
What the missile strike can leverage is some change in how Russia and Assad apply their military muscle, and the U.S. strike has likely achieved the only goal it’s leverage could produce; which is we are not likely to see another chemical weapons attack by Assad. End of leverage. Limited strike, and limited, but necessary result.
Can the religious, tribal and communal sectarianism in Syria be peacefully internalized in some new domestic political order? Not likely, other than how those differences have been contained since modern Syria was formed - a dictator’s hand; the same way those differences were kept beneath the pressure cooker lid in Iraq.
The political zeitgeist of so much of the Middle East now is not just Sunni violent fundamentalist extremists (Al Queda, ISIS, Hamas) versus Shia fundamentalist extremists (the Mullahs in Tehran, Hezbolla). Those separations go all the way up the population scale to the entire political class as well, who may be willing to go about their aims peacefully, but are charged, top to bottom, with advancing their group ahead of the others.
If a majority of the Sunni majority in Syria was going to put Sunni ascendancy down and follow a non-sectarian path in politics, they have had the entire history of modern Syria to show they could. The government of Syria is/was a secular organized government that did guarantee the same freedoms, and chances, to all citizens regardless of religion; minus rebellious opposition. Every major civil uprising in Syria has been Sunni led, and at the core of its organization the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
The Sunni “tribe” of Syria never fully bought into the Baathist secular governance in Syria. By their lights it continued to rob them of Sunni ascendancy they believed was their rightful due (a right they feel similarly about in other Middle East nations). Secular government meant the Sunni “tribe” had to play by secular, not sectarian rules. They rebelled, more than once. Hence, the Assad’s were never welcomed so much by the major Sunni dominated, Sunni majority countries of the Middle East, particularly the Saudis and their friends in the Gulf. The Baathist secular governance and the Assads had robbed the Sunnis of the sectarian dominance they believe was their rightful place.
That zeitgeist is not going to change in our lifetimes, not for a long time after that, and not until many unpredictable changes in the region happen. Why?
The forces of the Sunni-Shia tug of war have major forces internally and externally pushing them into fixed opposition, in too many (not all) Middle East countries.
There are politically secularist politicians in the Middle East. They have managed to play major roles in only a few places in the Middle East, and only with partial success in terms of tamping the sectarianism and its violent outbursts. So yes, they are there, but on the whole they are not winning.
And in Syria they are bare minority. Without Assad you have the Islamists and underneath & behind them the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. The moderates there will find themselves in the same position as the moderates that joined in the overthrow of the Sha in Iran - out, with little thanks for their help. Yes there are moderates in Syria, and they will be used by those who have a majority only as long as doing so is useful for gaining, and then controlling power. After that they will be out, politically.
What can we do then?
I can’t tell you. Loose lips sink ships.
I used to think highly of Hunter. This opinion piece sure changed my mind about him.
I fail to grasp how seeking peace between Sunnis and the minority alawites will occur. This is why we should have stayed out. The saudis are cheering and I don’t think there are any real. Good gypuys here. The Shia twelvers of iran aren’t very interested in negotiating either. This is not our place. I cant count how many times I think of this as exactly how we were drawn onto Iraq. I cannot support it, at this time. It is a Muslim civil war... didn’t learn our lesson, huh?