fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Partitioning Syria: A Terrible Idea That Won’t Die

Partition is far from the "least bad" solution.
syria-mapflag

Someone named Tom Friedman (who, I’m told, is a major newspaper columnist) has a terrible idea:

The least bad solution is a partition of Syria and the creation of a primarily Sunni protected area — protected by an international force, including, if necessary, some U.S. troops.

Partition is almost always no solution to armed conflict at all. Especially when a partition is drawn explicitly along ethnic or sectarian lines as Friedman seems to suggest doing, it becomes a trigger for more killing and forcible expulsion of whichever people happen to end up on the “wrong” side of the new lines. Furthermore, a partition along ethnic or sectarian lines reinforces and intensifies those divisions and tends to empower the most hard-line members of each community long after the war ends. A partition is typically a “solution” that outside powers devise to divvy up a country into two or more weaker statelets, all of which become international wards for years or decades to come. It isn’t really a “solution” to anything except the need to meddle and redraw other countries’ borders. It is rarely a “solution” that most people in the affected country want, and many will find it unacceptable. That doesn’t necessarily put an end to bloodletting, and it often turns a handful of warlords into “national” political leaders who then set out to exploit their new fiefdoms and abuse their political opponents. This is far from the “least bad” solution. It is, in fact, among the worst available.

The “protected area” Friedman recommends would require at least tens of thousands of soldiers to guard, and those soldiers will almost certainly be all or mostly American. They would be at risk of being targeted by jihadists and regime forces, and they would have a thankless task of serving as a buffer between warring parties for years and possibly decades to come. Any mission like this would not be a small, short, or cheap one, and unless it were accompanied by a negotiated settlement that halted the fighting it would also likely be very bloody.

The U.S. should be prioritizing the negotiation of a cease-fire that can become the basis of a durable truce. That would require coordinating diplomatically with the patrons of the regime and the opposition to put a halt to current fighting in order to permit the delivery of humanitarian aid. That could serve as a foundation for a long-term peace settlement, but these are the things that need to happen before that can start. Continued talk about military options and partitions that shouldn’t happen and would make things worse if they did is a waste of time that puts off the diplomatic effort that should be made.

Advertisement

Comments

Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here