|
ANALYSIS
“It long used to be said that Syria was impossible because it represented a choice between two evils: Assad or Isis. But the coalition of opposition groups assembled today in London, just like the forces who freed Manbij, demonstrate that there is another way. The [High Negotiating Committee]’s blueprint for a pluralist, democratic Syrian future may look like a fantasy now, but it does put the lie to the notion that the country’s only options are jihadist brutality or murderous Ba’athism,” writes Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian.
“The borders of the Islamic State’s ‘caliphate’ are shrinking fast. The group’s strongholds in Iraq and Syria are collapsing one by one. The U.S.-led war has reached a point where questions are being raised about what comes next. So far, the answer seems likely to be: more war. That’s partly because the U.S. strategy for defeating the Islamic State relies on a variety of regional allies and local armed groups who are often bitterly at odds. Though all of them regard the Islamic State as an enemy, most of them regard one another as enemies, too,” writes Liz Sly for the Washington Post.
“Dividing Syria along ethnic and religious lines will create more – not less – conflict and violence. Treating Syria or Iraq, Libya, Yemen and other troubled Arab nations like the former Yugoslavia (which was divided into seven states) will produce dozens more fragile conflicting mini-states. But even that isn’t really my main point. Of grave importance here is the fact that it’s the Syrian regime (and ISIL) that’s busy reshaping and dividing the country through bloodshed and ethnic cleaning along sectarian or/and defensible lines,” writes Marwan Bishara at Al Jazeera.
|