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
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Strategic Horizons: U.S. Strategy for Defeating the Islamic State Group Won't Work
- A Tale of Two Interventions: U.S. Content to Contain Islamic State Group and Ebola
- World Citizen: The King’s Speech Signals Shift in Dutch, European Worries
- The Realist Prism: Can Obama Count on ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to Fight Islamic State Group?
- Islamic State Threat Puts Independence on Hold for Iraq’s Kurds