A Plan to End the War in Syria?

[WestCoastRunner]

Brian Stewart, provided some interesting analysis today on a possible plan to end the war in Syria:

Key Concessions:

"Those signs, including war weariness, are now starting to emerge.

Key players on opposite sides of the conflict — such as Russia and the U.S. — seem to realize that this war is now feeding jihadist violence that is threatening all nations.

So they've started making concession to arrive at a common roadmap for the differing Syrians factions to follow.

Simplified greatly, the object is to get a ceasefire and some sort of collaboration between the Assad regime and the so-called moderate rebels by as early as January no less.

Then, using this transitional truce and lots of UN help, seek a new Syrian constitution to arrive at national elections and a new government within 18 months."

"It's an optimistic deadline. But if a ceasefire can be arranged that should also accelerate efforts to eliminate ISIS and other jihadist militias on the ground, while, at the same time, establishing safe havens where Syrians and northern Iraqis can start rebuilding their countries.

Lest this all seem like a pipedream, remember that these Vienna talks have succeeded in getting 17 parties of some considerable clout to the table.

Among others, the list includes the five permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as all the important regional powerhouses such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and the Gulf States.

Maybe most notable is that Iran and Saudi Arabia, two of the most diehard foes you can find, and who both helped fuel the war, appeared in the same conference room for the first time, to the astonishment of the world's media."

I didn't quote the whole article, but it is a good read.

Let's hope our world leaders show their leadership by moving forward with a well thought out strategic plan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/peace-plan-syria-brian-stewart-1.3328962

[Big Guy]

Interesting article. Unfortunately the suggested process still implies a military solution - ISIS will be "destroyed". ISIS is a collection of Sunni nationalists fighting in and or for their land. You cannot destroy nationalism.

They used to have their own country - Saddam ruled Iraq. Now that is gone and they want Southern Iraq and Northern Syria, the areas with Sunni majority, as their new country. They call it a Caliphate or ISIL or whatever. They could call it Disneyland but it would still be a theocracy. If Israel can function as one then so can ISIL.

This eventual solution will be political as is every other solution - it will require accepting a Sunni country.

[-1=e^ipi]

They should have done that years ago when the civil war was starting.

But instead the West, lead by idiot politicians like Harper, Obama and Cameron, were convinced that they needed to fund the 'moderate' rebels, demanded that Assad step down even though he had a significant share of the population supporting him, and wanted to engage in a proxy war against Russia in Syria. Even as evidence was being shown that the 'rebels' were cannibalistic fanatics. Russia and Syria have been arguing for a peace agreement for years.

youtube video

But don't worry. Our birth right Prime Minister and his defense minister are convinced Assad must go at all costs. Trudeau has also told us that he will tell Putin to not be a bully, to his face! I'm sure they will help bring sunny ways to Syria.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Michael Hardner
removed video image, replaced with link

[eyeball]

Whatever the case, forward movement here is significant because there's arguably nothing the world needs more at this time than to terminate the bloody war that for almost five years has spewed add-on conflicts and insurgencies like volcanic ash over the entire Middle East and, now, much of Europe.

The last five years. No, I'm afraid not. The "bloody war" is not the volcano, it's just more ash.

It's difficult to imagine anything that doesn't result in homelands for Sunnis and Kurds or at the very least roadmaps towards them will last.

Maybe most notable is that Iran and Saudi Arabia, two of the most diehard foes you can find, and who both helped fuel the war, appeared in the same conference room for the first time, to the astonishment of the world's media.

I'd suggest inviting Israel and Palestine as observers.

"The Middle East is like a Rubik's cube that doesn't have a solution no matter how much you move the pieces around," as political writer Lawrence Wright famously put it some years back.

My kid figured it out, and there are probably millions of others who can too. They have contests to see who can do it fastest. Edited November 24, 2015 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

They should have done that years ago when the civil war was starting.

But instead the West, lead by idiot politicians like Harper, Obama and Cameron, were convinced that they needed to fund the 'moderate' rebels, demanded that Assad step down even though he had a significant share of the population supporting him, and wanted to engage in a proxy war against Russia in Syria. Even as evidence was being shown that the 'rebels' were cannibalistic fanatics. Russia and Syria have been arguing for a peace agreement for years.

youtube video

The US has been funding terrorists way before ISIS came along. Even Clinton knows that the US created Al-Queda.

But I must ask. Iraq has not gotten any better since Hussein was ousted. Does anyone thing Syria will go down any different if Assad is taken out?

Also we must stop using the term 'civil war' when referring to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. This is simply war supported by several other nations on both sides of the fight. If we keep calling it a civil war, we miss the point on how it all started. And our governments have had an explicit role in perpetuating the violence over there.

[Moonlight Graham]

From the article:

Then, using this transitional truce and lots of UN help, seek a new Syrian constitution to arrive at national elections and a new government within 18 months.

...

One key detail: The future constitution will insist on a non-sectarian government with firm guarantees for all religions and ethnic groups, including Kurds, Sunnis, Alawites and Orthodox Christians (a population strongly backed by Russia).

Interesting. I'll believe it when I see it.

Many U.S. Republicans are also upset that these emerging deals would appear to leave Russia and Iran with some permanent stakes in Syria.

Oh Republicans, they'll never give an inch of power even if it may mean peace The great comprisors and negotiators!

Edited November 24, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Even Clinton knows that the US created Al-Queda.

How did the US "create" al-Qaeda? Just because they sent funds to the Pakistani gov to help support the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which was pre-al-Qaeda?

[Topaz]

By the following link, the war could come to an end sooner because Russia just wipe a complete city off the map and killed anyone there. The civilians are being killed to get to ISIS and another city by the article says another city is probably going to be wiped out also. I still say that all nations in this fight should send boots on the ground at 300-500,000 and get ISIS, so all the people from Syria can return to thier country.

http://www.debka.com/newsupdate/13793/Russian-bombers-wipe-out-Syrian-city-of-Nawa-just-15-km-from-Golan

[Big Guy]

And what kind of "living space" would they be returning to?

[socialist]

How did the US "create" al-Qaeda? Just because they sent funds to the Pakistani gov to help support the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which was pre-al-Qaeda?

Obama supporters won't place the blame squarely where it belongs - Obama and Hillary Clinton's creation of the Syrian conflict in the first place.

Obama/Clinton were quick to grab onto and support the "Arab Spring" which was in reality terrorist inspired revolts using local secular stooges against Middle East country "Dictators" who had been the key to stabilizing those countries since the first World War. Once deposed, the terrorists have taken over in every one of the countries, Obama/Clinton had naive dreams of "democratization". That is; with the exception of the Egyptians, who saw thru their game.

Putin is pragmatic. He's not into Obama's "dreams". Syria is Russia's Naval Military Base in the Mediterranean, and Putin's not about to lose it.

[-1=e^ipi]

Also we must stop using the term 'civil war'

It's a civil war, so should be called a civil war.

[overthere]

None of this will work unless two players are eliminated from Syria, and decisively eliminated.

The first is Assad. He is simply representative of far too much death. Usually France takes in these deposed beasts, but not this time. I think he'll have to end up in Russia or one of their client states. Of course, Russia will have to be paid for this, and their price will start at keeping their naval base in Syria no matter who runs the show in Damascus. But Assad must go, and he will go if he thinks he has a chance of leaving with his life and the lives of his family. He'll also need assurances from everybody/immunity so he can travel the world without getting arrested as a war criminal.

The other is ISIS. They cannot be controlled, so it is going to take a major ground and air war to get them out of Syria. That is obviously more problematic......

[GostHacked]

How did the US "create" al-Qaeda? Just because they sent funds to the Pakistani gov to help support the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which was pre-al-Qaeda?

Same way they created and helped the 'Free Syrian Army'. But Hillary Clinton has answered your questions much better than I ever.

[Moonlight Graham]

Also we must stop using the term 'civil war' when referring to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. This is simply war supported by several other nations on both sides of the fight. If we keep calling it a civil war, we miss the point on how it all started. And our governments have had an explicit role in perpetuating the violence over there.

Well it is a civil war, but it's also a proxy war.

[Moonlight Graham]

Same way they created and helped the 'Free Syrian Army'. But Hillary Clinton has answered your questions much better than I ever.

Like how?

[jacee]

None of this will work unless two players are eliminated from Syria, and decisively eliminated.

The first is Assad. He is simply representative of far too much death. Usually France takes in these deposed beasts, but not this time. I think he'll have to end up in Russia or one of their client states. Of course, Russia will have to be paid for this, and their price will start at keeping their naval base in Syria no matter who runs the show in Damascus. But Assad must go, and he will go if he thinks he has a chance of leaving with his life and the lives of his family. He'll also need assurances from everybody/immunity so he can travel the world without getting arrested as a war criminal.

The other is ISIS. They cannot be controlled, so it is going to take a major ground and air war to get them out of Syria. That is obviously more problematic......

Simplified greatly, the object is to get a ceasefire and some sort of collaboration between the Assad regime and the so-called moderate rebels by as early as January no less.

They are dropping the requirement that Assad must go as it isn't attainable.

But if Russia is now destroying entire cities including thousands of civilians, this 'plan' may no longer be in play.

Such actions may drive the rest of the Syrian civilians into the hands of ISIS, giving it new life.

.

[overthere]

They are dropping the requirement that Assad must go as it isn't attainable.

But if Russia is now destroying entire cities including thousands of civilians, this 'plan' may no longer be in play.

Such actions may drive the rest of the Syrian civilians into the hands of ISIS, giving it new life.

.

There will be no peace deal in Syria unless Assad is gone. It is that simple, he cannot be part of it from any perspective. And that is attainable.

Russia is his major backer, and they will eventually be the power broker in his departure. But as I said, Russia cannot and will not do that unless they have assurances their needs are met. Putin also needs a bit of time to set the stage for his role, which will be heroic bringer of peace to a part of the Middle East, somethng everybody else and most notably the US has failed at. Russia- and Assad- know that his reign lasts as along as Russia provides support. The purpose of this drama by Putin is to work towards his goal of a return of Russian, or shall we say Soviet, hegemony. They eat it up at home. And do you think the destrcution of cities and death of civilians furthers Putins goals? Of course it does.

Sadly, much of this is superpower theater.

[jacee]

There will be no peace deal in Syria unless Assad is gone. It is that simple, he cannot be part of it from any perspective. And that is attainable.

Russia is his major backer, and they will eventually be the power broker in his departure. But as I said, Russia cannot and will not do that unless they have assurances their needs are met. Putin also needs a bit of time to set the stage for his role, which will be heroic bringer of peace to a part of the Middle East, somethng everybody else and most notably the US has failed at. Russia- and Assad- know that his reign lasts as along as Russia provides support. The purpose of this drama by Putin is to work towards his goal of a return of Russian, or shall we say Soviet, hegemony. They eat it up at home. And do you think the destrcution of cities and death of civilians furthers Putins goals? Of course it does.

Sadly, much of this is superpower theater.

They have dropped the requirement that Assad be gone immediately, in order to get a ceasefire, a multilateral committee along with Assad, then elections within 18 months.

Read the op article.

Edited November 27, 2015 by jacee

[overthere]

I did read it.

And stand by what I said. because I understand the relative positions of Assad and Putin.

Assad has virtually no game left, except what is assigned to him , largely by Russia.

One of the big problems in Syria(aside from the millions of citizens who have left and a monster civil war) is that their is no clear successor to Assad.

All parties know that Assad cannot and will not be part of any election, 18 months gives time for the transition. One thing for sure, whomever has the puppet strings attached to their back will know their masters voice. And Russia will undoubtedly be one of them.

[Big Guy]

There is no military solution just like there was none in Iraq or Afghanistan. Eventually, people will get tired of killing and start to talk:

The end result:

Syria reduced on the North but still ruled by Assad.

Iraq changed to a small country having lost 2/3 of its land and ruled by American figureheads.

The Kurds with their own country which used to be part if Iraq.

The Country of ISIL ruling a Caliphate made up of the previous Sunni dominated areas of Iraq and Syria.

Turkey as it is now.

Not enough info on Yemen or Oman and UAE yet. Things just getting started there.

Saudi Arabia next target.