Should the West attempt to make the Syrian civil war drag on for as long as possible? The question may sound morally offensive and politically wrong-headed. The U.S. and its allies have consistently called for a rapid cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement. Yet they are currently pursuing military, diplomatic and humanitarian strategies that could contribute to prolonging the conflict. This could result in either a stalemate inside Syria or even more violence in the country and across the Middle East.
As the Syrian war escalated from steady but limited violence to large-scale bloodletting in 2012, many Western observers believed that it would have to end quickly. President Bashar al-Assad appeared to be hemorrhaging support and losing territory. Yet in the past six months, Assad has regained military momentum. While he is still a long way from complete victory, his total defeat seems equally unlikely. There has also been increasingly vicious internecine fighting between secular and Islamist factions of the Syrian rebels. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
Sign up for two weeks of free access with your credit card. Cancel any time during the free trial and you will be charged nothing.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Reality Check: The Past’s First Lesson: Beware of False Historical Analogies
- Global Insights: As Iran Deal Nears, U.S. Must Also Reassure Central Asia, Caucasus
- Strategic Horizons: For Hint of Iraq’s Future, Take Another Look at Vietnam War
- France’s Hollande Exploits Political Openings to Deepen Gulf Ties
- Reality Check: The Real Iraq War Debate’s Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy