Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said, as far as realistically. However, since the question was what would the most ethical policy be, I also agree with swstephe that ethical questions no longer apply here, realistically. But since ethics deals primarily with fantasies, the answer I gave is based entirely on what a fantastical situation would look like. All of the other major parties involved in Syria and Eastern Turkey and Iraq are all undesirable: Assad and his allies are weak and/or intolerable dictator, ISIS and Al-Qaeda are Islamo-Fascists, the Western nations faction are a bunch of pigs and (if, fantastically, they desired so much) would want to be there and in control for all the wrong reasons. The only group that is not only the least undesirable, but actually desirable for any ethical human would be the Rojava alliance. So, the correct answer, ethically, is to let support the Rojava and give them complete control over all of Syria and the autonomous areas of Iraq. Realistically, this will never happen.

What will probably happen is some sort of alliance between the Assad faction, whether directly or indirectly, and the West and Russia, which will win out in the end.

Thank you for your comments, Πετροκότσυφας!

I'm not aware of any powerful Kurdish organization which speaks about an independent Kurdistan. That's Erdogan talk. — Πετροκότσυφας

This is a bit confusing for me. I understand that Kurdish organizations aren't talking about now of independence, because of obvious political reasons, but I assume that an independent Kurdish homeland has to be their objective. Or am I mistaken?

Besides, you seem to have some knowledge about the situation. How would you, from your point of view, characterize the various Kurdish or non-Kurdish players here? I have to say I'm not aware what the difference between YPG and YPG/J is (although yes, I could google it up, but like to hear your comments).

That's not my understanding at all. — Πετροκότσυφας

Interesting. But it makes sense. An independent Kurdistan would likely get similar treatment as Israel did when it proclaimed independence. Hence the democratic confederalism. So basically can the Kurds cut a deal with the Assad regime and be basically like the Kurds in Iraq?

I think likely Assad will go after Rojava if and when he has the ability to do that.

I think that territorial gains shouldn't be downplayed. Aleppo, ar-Raqqa and Al-Hasakah governorates, which is where the QSD operate right now, is not an insignificant part of Syria. Most importantly, they need not be the only parts where the QSD operate. This is why it is mandatory for people to understand that it's not a Kurdish project. Islamists tried in the past to discredit the liberation of various areas by the YPG on ethnic grounds. Most of it was just propaganda, as far as I can tell. — Πετροκότσυφας

I think there is an obvious counterinsurgency tactic in downplaying any moderate factions and actually assisting, perhaps at least not going after them, the most fanatical islamist factions. And Assad himself is the biggest player with the sectarian/ethnic card. Basically the Assad regime has tried to put the ethnic minorities in the situation that without them they will be slaughtered. Hence the non-sectarian opposition that doesn't go with ethnic lines is the number one target for him. The biggest threat comes from factions that could be accepted by the international community.

The Algerian civil war is a perfect example of this. The islamists that won the election but then faced the army coup found themselves fighting both the army and the extremists. And these extremists faded away once the peace was signed with the army. Now of course Syria and Iraq are different, but the way we talk about them is similar. Assad in some views is coming to be "the least bad option"... and that is his objective.

Assad was the epitome of reasonableness in this interview with Dutch news recently:



The fact that he's claiming to pursue a unity government with elections within 1,5 years seems to me to indicate he doesn't expect to hold out in the given circumstances and is looking to cut his losses. The absolutism of IS disqualifies them as a possible partner in that process but a unified front against IS would be good for Syrians as most probably the fastest way to security. Indirectly that will benefit the West as it would contain IS at a Western front.

A unified government representing Syrians broadly would also be an authority it would make sense for us to support through military action without military presence. I'd advise against support through military material as the proliferation of weapons anywhere just raises the probability of them being used. Once IS is kicked out of Syria, we should support the planned re-elections and help Syrians stabilise their country in a manner as they see fit.

Once IS is kicked out of Syria, we should support the planned re-elections and help Syrians stabilise their country in a manner as they see fit. — Benkei

How aptly you said it: "Planned re-elections".

Well, let's remember that Bashar had lots of time as he came to power in 2000. In a decade nothing yet happened. Now he might have indeed wanted reforms, but simply the whole setup of power wasn't going to be so. The simple fact is that he would have had to give up the family enterprise called Syria. Sunni's and others than people loyal to Assad would have had to come into power. When your father dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood as he done, there was no real way to hand off power and think that everything will go very civilized. In a way, the Assad regime was ready for this civil war.

How aptly you said it: "Planned re-elections".

Well, let's remember that Bashar had lots of time as he came to power in 2000. In a decade nothing yet happened. Now he might have indeed wanted reforms, but simply the whole setup of power wasn't going to be so. The simple fact is that he would have had to give up the family enterprise called Syria. Sunni's and others than people loyal to Assad would have had to come into power. When your father dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood as he done, there was no real way to hand off power and think that everything will go very civilized. In a way, the Assad regime was ready for this civil war. — ssu

Maybe an exchange of family members would be the way forward then. Like how they used to do it in the middle ages. Take his children as "proteges" and if he doesn't deliver on his promises execute them. Oh wait... that isn't quite ethical by modern standards any more. Dammit! :P

I know what an ethical policy towards Syria wouldn't look like. It wouldn't assent to the sort of measures that likely result in significant "collateral damage", i.e. dead or injured civilian victims. And it wouldn't involve supporting the detestable Assad regime, even as the better of evils. Shame on anyone who does so: Agustino, it seems, based on his comments.

I know what an ethical policy towards Syria wouldn't look like. It wouldn't assent to the sort of measures that likely result in significant "collateral damage", i.e. dead or injured civilian victims. And it wouldn't involve supporting the detestable Assad regime, even as the better of evils. Shame on anyone who does so: Agustino, it seems, based on his comments. — Sapientia

Quite well said. The problem is that normally in a war you take a side or another and help it to victory. And Syria is now already a proxy war, which means it will go on longer than otherwise it would go. Once both sides aren't nice, you have a problem.

Or if you want to get the Nobel-peace prize, wait until the sides are so tired and uncapable of anymore continuing the fight, that they are ready for some kind of peace, then make them shake hands. That might take still some years, but perhaps can happen earlier, even if it's unlikely.