Mettre un terme à la guerre en Syrie

Feb 29, 2016 Jeffrey D. Sachs

NEW YORK – La Syrie est actuellement la plus grande catastrophe humanitaire au monde et, du point de vue géopolitique, le conflit le plus dangereux de la planète. Les Syriens sont emportés dans un bain de sang, qui a fait plus de 400 000 morts et déplacé dix millions de personnes.

De violents groupes djihadistes, soutenus par des parrains extérieurs, ravagent sans pitié le pays et s’attaquent aux populations. Toutes les parties en conflit – le régime du président Bachar Al-Assad, les forces anti-Assad soutenues par les États-Unis et leurs alliés, ainsi que l’État islamique – ont commis et continuent de commettre de graves crimes de guerre.

Il est temps de trouver une solution. Mais celle-ci doit s’articuler à une analyse transparente et réaliste des causes premières de la guerre.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Writing for PS since 1995
344 Commentaries

Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism, and, most recently, The Ages of Globalization.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 48 Comments on this article

Bruce Steinback Apr 4, 2016

IMHO this article makes some very serious accusations with minimal support. The one article cited here refers first to a program only started in 2013, not 2011, and it states that Saudi money was funneled to CIA contractors to do the training, implying that the trainees were not jihadis, but moderate opponents of the Syrian regime.

I'm not saying the Dr. Sachs is lying, but I'd like to see some serious support before going overboard. That Obama thought the Assad regime more fragile than it was seems plausible, but support for Jihadi opposition would need more documentation that provided here.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
rahul upmanyu Mar 29, 2016

hi Jeffrey-It is heartening to see whose views might be similar to what you would have known since few years back.Reminds me of spiderman movie dialogue- with Great power comes greater resposibility.I also have an opinion on industrilization,growth,carbon content and where all this is leading us and world.Are we more happy then what we wold have been 300 yrs back.I mean the concept of peace and peaceful co-existence.Check out what i wrote 3 yrs back..http://politicoreview.blogspot.in/2013/08/the-great-game-syrian-crisis.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sthanu Dutt Mar 13, 2016

What a sensible suggestion, but will anyone listen? Very strange that a democratic country like the USA is involved in creating problems all over the world causing the death and destruction of countless human beings.
G.S.S. Dutt
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William deB. Mills Mar 7, 2016

The ideas that the solution to Mideast chaos depends on those who live there and that the U.S. should press Saudi Arabia and Iran (primarily) to reach a live-and-let-live accommodation are great ideals, but leaving them hanging without facing up to the obstacles to their realization makes their voicing somewhat pointless, if not misleading. It may be true that the West did not invent the Sunni-Shi'i schism, but the West has certain played this Muslim weakness for all it was worth. Pouring the gasoline of endless weapons on the flames of regional discord does not exactly make the West an innocent bystander.

In other words, “pressing” local hardliners to reach a civilized accommodation will require a revolution in, primarily, U.S. foreign policy. Obama has indeed taken a half-step in that direction by reaching a nuclear accord with Iran, but the self-serving, short-sighted arming of Saudi Arabia (following the precedent of the equally short-sighted arming of Israel beyond all legitimate defensive needs) encourages extremist military behavior. A guy with nothing but a hammer will find things to pound. The entirely predictable results of playing favorites based on the religious beliefs of regime officials are aggressive behavior by U.S. proxies (Israel in Lebanon, Syria years ago, Palestine; Saudi Arabia in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria today), followed by the current Moscow-Damascus-Tehran-Baghdad coalition. The U.S. should abandon the whole approach of using proxies in favor of working with (or against) states based on their behavior...and supporting behavior conducive to regional moderation rather than behavior that promotes and provokes extremism.

A U.S. policy of punishing states that use U.S. arms for repression of minorities at home or military adventures abroad and rewards states for conciliatory behavior would indeed go far toward moderating Mideast chaos in Palestine, Syria, and Yemen. But the policy would have to be applied across the region, over a long period of time, sincerely and resolutely, to convince anyone in the Mideast that the rules of the game had been changed.--William deB. Mills
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rik Rijs Mar 7, 2016

It's time for Europe to review its ties with the USA. In all scenarios China will prove to be a better ally for Europe.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rik Rijs Mar 7, 2016

The refugee crisis is an excellent opportunity for Turkey to blackmail the EU. And to embarras centuries old enemy Greece. So, it's in the interest of Turkey to keep the war in Syria going. And Turkey has shown from the very beginning its involvement. Turkey's involvement is well documented. An unreliable NATO partner that no one can stop.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nirmalan Dhas Mar 7, 2016

“Violent jihadist groups backed by outside patrons mercilessly ravage the country and prey on the population.”
Accordingly if there are no “Jihadist” groups then there will be no one for outside forces to back and hence no problem. What then are these “Jihadist” groups and what are the dynamics that generate them?
All over the world there are groups of people who violently oppose the currently dominant global civilization of the human species. This dominant civilization is often described by these groups as “the white mans law” which they identify as a persisting impact of “colonialism” and do not wish to subscribe to and on the contrary viscerally hate and wish very much to violently destroy and eradicate in favor of any one of many systems based on the arbitrary exercising of personal power based on cunning, strategic manipulation, physical strength, violence rape and torture, the threat of loss of life and the force of arms.
There are also many individuals who are thoughtfully critical of the currently dominant civilization of the human species. They point out inequity, the uneven distribution of resources, political exclusivity and marginalization and negative economic externalities as key problems that lead to a mismatch between perceptual capacity and the capacities required to realize perceptions and consequently impoverish the species and hinder its conscious evolution.
Some of them maintain that even if these problems are resolved the current civilization based on the growth model of development is itself unsustainable and that a complete transformation of the global civilization of the human species is urgently required if civilizational collapse and the possible extinction of the species are to be avoided.
I will not here describe dynamics that may lead to the resolution of these problems but I will point out that the support of “outside forces” that support these violent organizations in their opposition to the currently dominant global civilization of the human species is having the effect of exposing these violent groups and activating them causing them to lose the support of their traditional ideological bases and creating conditions that may lead to the isolation of these violent groups and the cleansing and re constitution of the ideological bases and their organizational structures that have permitted the emergence of these violent groups in ways that prevent such groups from drawing inspiration from these ideological structures and content in the future.
A central pillar of the emerging global response to this ideological violence is the perception of a relationship between intelligence – measured as IQ - and civilization, that transcends culture, ethnicity, ideology and genetic heritage and it offers the possibility of stratification along the lines of perceptual functionality and the employment of mass perceptual modification towards species management. The structures required for the effective formulation and initiation and guidance of such long-term initiatives have to be painstakingly generated by the few individuals spread across the face of the planet who can perceive them and the dynamics that they can generate. Such initiatives have been successfully launched at intervals of roughly a thousand years time and better ones based on increased awareness and consciousness are already in the making. The welfare of the species will depend on their outcomes.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Roger Merritt Mar 7, 2016

Among Wikileaks documents is a cable from the American ambassador in Syria in 2006, outlining steps being taken to undermine the Assad government. The U.S. has been planning this war since the neocons annunced PNAC back in 1998. That's where you need to look for root causes. Also, ISIS was a creation of the CIA, which also is/was supporting their old minions from al Qa'ida, rebranded as Jabhat al Nusra. There is a declassified report from the Defense Intelligence Agency warning of the danger of supporting these extremists groups originally sent to the State Department in 2012. The then head of DIA (now retired) has publicly stated that his memo was ignored because of policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Keith Johnson Mar 7, 2016

You completely miss the fact that 'Syria' is an artificial construct - a net thrown casually over a splintered ethnic and religious mosaic. In the 1982 Hama Massacre 10,000 to maybe 40,000 people lost thir lives under punitive actions by the current President's father Hafez. I have given you a link here so that you can start to inform yourself about 'what caused the war in the first place':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Jefferson Mar 6, 2016

This analysis is incomplete and misleading, because it does not discuss ISIS and the Kurds.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sadi Yumuşak Mar 6, 2016

As usual, the most sober analysis of the Syrian crisis, and the wisest proposal for a way out.
These proposals should lead to a new international consensus so as to end such crises in the 21st century:
The US, and all UN members in deed, should stop all overt and covert support for armed and violent struggles for any regime change irrespective of how that regime or its opponents might be defined.
Otherwise everybody will go on and on supporting "freedom fighters" and/or fighting "terrorists".
The time has come (actually long ago, back in early 1990s) for the international community, and the US in the first place, to realize that today's "freedom fighters" might become tomorrow's "terrorists", like Al Qaeda.
It's incomprehensible that even Obama administration wishing to avoid repeating the past mistakes, cannot see this, and continue following the same policy, “my foe's foe is my friend”, in Syria, providing support to jihadist extremists against Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorial regime at first, and now backing Stalinist extremists (with undercover links to the regime) against jihadist extremists.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Kiddle Mar 6, 2016

What a breath of fresh air. This article is the best summary of events in Syria I have read.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Allan Bleiken Mar 6, 2016

THE TRUTH AT LAST

This is without a doubt, the most truthful assessment of the Syrian war and how it must be stopped.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Pu Mar 6, 2016

Russia wants to keep it's mediterranean port in Syria and the west wants it out. That, my friend, IS the Syrian war.

If we only can put Mr. Putin and Mr. Obama in a steal cage and let them duke it out "till death do they part" style, there will be no wars.

Genghis Khan rode the first horse when he conquered the world. Today's cowards send other people's sons and daughters in harm's way for national security reasons.

That's the way it is. Not complicated.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Toufic Abu Alwan Mar 6, 2016

Dr SAchs As i am a Chilean living in Beirut since 1960 got maried and i am in the middle of the caos may i confirm part of what aU STATING BUT IN MY OPINION ALL PROBLEMS WERE DUE TO NEGLIGENCE AND HELP OF THE BIG POWERS whom they have helped dictators and absolute powers authorities to control the middle eastewrn countreis playing with the reguios filing in adidition to the palestkine problem created also by the superpowers and not yet solved Now as a person living in this area may i tell you thet problems in all the area will increase if a so,lution aceptable buy all parties is provided
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Garrett Connelly Mar 6, 2016

Nice article. Do I say this only because I agree?

Yes and no — Very well written, too.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dennis Choptiany Mar 5, 2016

An interesting synopsis, but two major points are not mentioned - ISIS and drought.
Some have already mentioned ISIS so there is no pint in furthering that point except to say - What peaceful settlement can be achieved without ISIS being involved in the negotiations and who really thinks that this group is willing to negotiate?
The second point is linked to Global Warming and this issue has been either neglected entirely or only mentioned in passing. Prior to the droughts, that have persisted for several years, there was relative stability in Syria. The drought created a movement from rural areas to urban centers, where jobs were scarce and social services inadequate. People became desperate and started to rise up in protest over the lack of support. Those protests became more extreme and served as kindling to the jihadist flames that have engulfed the region.
Unfortunately that scenario will be repeated across the globe, but particularly in North Africa where rural communities are reeling.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Talal Serhan Mar 4, 2016

If Iran's ambitions are not put to an end, troubles will continue and will not be confined to the ME. Those who covertly support its conspiracies will finally pay a lot.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alex Leo Mar 3, 2016

Assad had a long history of fighting jihadis. What the article conveniently skips is the tens of thousands jihadis that Assad let out of prison who left to Iraq to take part in the insurgency under the Bush presidency. Once the insurgency was crushed, they came back to Syria and were promptly put in jail again. You have to be pretty lazy or dishonest or both to ignore this.
Syria has been a secular state and many of those fighting Assad have claimed a religious creed as adistinction from the government. To say that all of them are criminal is to say that all Muslims are criminals, and it is only natural that the US would support some and not others. But if you prefer to ignore reality and like conspiracy theories, watch a movie, but spare us the shallowness and incompleteness.
- Talal Serhan Mar 4, 2016
  
  Most of "those who were promptly put in jail again" were released later by Assad regime to take over the insurgency.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Miguel Carvalho Mar 2, 2016

On a broader note, it could be that more than anything else, what the Middle East needs is not to be told what to do but to find, nurture and empower a great consensual Leader - a new Gamal Abdel Nasser or Salah ad-Din. Only someone with a great vision, deeply ingrained by nature in all aspects of life and culture of the Region and thoroughly informed of its strengths, pitfalls, problems and virtues, will ever command the respect, attention and support of all parts involved in perennial conflicts. It is frustrating to think that many such Leaders have come and gone anonymously throughout the years due to lack of support - or were otherwise silenced. Solutions that elude "thinkers of the West" will most naturally flow from such Leader. Historically, these individuals emerge from breaking point situations, of which ISIS is a clear example. In that regard, one is left with hoping that the Islamic State could be a blessing in disguise.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Mar 2, 2016

Neither America nor Russia nor anyone else have a real interest in continuing the cold war - and here it is, another proxy war in the cold war - no different to Korea or Vietnam or any of the others. You have to wonder way electorates tolerate this - what do they think? Do they think they can win the cold war? You cannot win a war against anyone with thousands of nukes - the more you back them into a corner the more dangerous they become. It is like common sense has given way to madness.
- Michael Public Mar 2, 2016
  
  why - not way
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chan Chan Mar 2, 2016

Jeffrey Sachs anaylsis are grounded and if taken seriously by the major players in this war it could bring swift peace and stabilize the region. We need to understand that long term percussions of this war on Europe and the entire world are enormous and likely to creat major hovac, just reflect on the recent challenges of illigal emigration to European countries and its impact on these societies . Wars have never been won thru battles, tables matter more...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Art Ireland Mar 2, 2016

A good synopsis of the past and how the present was arrived at. Not so sure about the solution offered. KSA, Turkey etc are not going to voluntarily give up on their ambitions and it is hard to see what can be used as leverage to force them to behave. There is also no mention of how extremist terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Nusra are to be handled. As they do most of the serious anti-government fighting they are the ones who most require a solution, and they are not interested in any political solution which doesn't include all apostates ending up with their heads on poles, thus leaving only a military option open, which brings us back to where we are today.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
munaff koman Mar 1, 2016

الكاتب أفرد نقاط سته من الصعب على الدول كلها تطبيقها، لإنها مرتبطة بمصالح جيوسياسية في سوريا وفي المنطقة وليس بعواطف جياشة.
- Henry Rech Mar 3, 2016
  
  "trigger needed for such Great Leader"
  
  No more Great Leaders please.
  Why the peoples of the Middle East just stand up for decency and democracy and eschew self defeating tribalism?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Miguel Carvalho Mar 2, 2016
  
  Munaff, sorry to take your time. Do you think is it safe to say that the Middle East instability problems could well be solved from within, under the leadership of consensual new Gamal Abdel Nasser or Salah ad-Din? If so, can you see one such leader emerging? Could the drama caused by ISIS be a trigger needed for such Great Leader to emerge? Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I really appreciate it.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Mar 2, 2016
  
  You are correct, it is easy to forget the 'orphan with his gun standing like a fire in the sun' (Dylan). One can only hope it ends
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Jones Mar 1, 2016

This is a good summary of the Syrian scandal - which cannot really be separated from the Iran war, an even bigger scandal. I find it quite amazing that technocrats in the 21st century, because they happen to belong to a Super-Power bloc, can play out their macho power games at the expense of smaller states, blasting them with all the latest weapons ( gifted to them by careless taxpayers), writing off millions of unengaged civilians, the survivors still pouring into Europe, as "collateral damage". It is downright disgusting. No wonder so many Muslims, along with millions of others around the world, are so scathing about our wealthy, highly educated, market-driven ineptness and contempt for decent human values. The latest irony is that there is now a booming business providing the wherewithal to erect fences and crash barriers to keep out angry hordes of migrants!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Mar 1, 2016

One of the central issues that needs to be addressed is that the Carter Doctrine provided the illusion that the US could set the limits of regime change in the region in collaboration with its Sunni allies and Israel. The Obama administration failed to recognize that after the Bush-led invasion, occupation, and fragmentation of the Baath state in Iraq, the US and its allies in the region had initiated a struggle over the future of the Shia within the region that would effectively result in the discredit of the Carter Doctrine. The attempted destabilization of Syria and overthrow of the Assad regime by the American-Israeli-Saudi-Sunni constellation of interests - following the blunders in Iraq has revealed that the Saudis have little to offer the region beyond its control of the Holy sites of Islam.
The Obama administration's decision to restructure the US energy policies towards regaining self-sufficiency in energy has redefined the terms of the American engagement with the region. The humanitarian disaster produced by the war in Iraq has led to the European re-calibration of their terms of engagement with the Middle East, and both Russia and China have little tolerance for the promotion of Pan-Islamist alliances promoted by Saudi Arabia and Turkey that could destabilize their internal politics. In effect, the war in Syria is a major turning point in the international system and marks the end of the Saudi illusion that it could determine the future of Islam.
- Petey Bee Mar 1, 2016
  
  @CF
  
  I think it's a great idea to look at these conflicts in the terms you are using.
  
  From my very limited view as a spectator in the US, I would want a tiny bit more convincing on the matter of Saudi and Turk actions being pan-islamist, but regardless of that, they are most gleefully adding fuel to the fire, and it really looks like the US has facilitated this in Syria.
  
  The Iraq war and continued similar-style adventurism (typically based on unrealistic marketing materials) not only discredits the Carter doctrine, but brings into question whether there is any doctrine or long term thinking at all. It's absolutely terrifying if you hope to live in a prosperous US in, say, 20 years.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george w. aregers Mar 1, 2016

Very balanced article. Bravo!
What is always forgotten,here is the elephant in the room. History not to be forgotten. In 1996, Bill Clinton accepted a demand--7 middle East countries need to be destroyed. As you know now--one remains-Iran. Then in 1999,same folks proposed A New Pearl Harbor was needed to get the job done. Then came Sept 11 20001 attacks.
Author has omitted the reasons America and Western allies attacked the middle east
In a nut shell--gas/oil pipeline through Syria to feed Europe and put Russia out of oil business
- Henry Rech Mar 3, 2016
  
  Interesting thesis.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Bruce Mar 1, 2016

It seems we have learnt nothing in the last decade. Behind the disaster that was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were two great failures of judgement. One was the US obsession with removing a very bad dictator (Sadam Hussein) by force, and the other was the irrational need for revenge following the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

I thought things were very different under Obama, but with relentless predictability we have created yet another humanitarian disaster. What were the drivers in Syria? US obsession with removing Assad by force, and revenge against ISIS(Daesh) for acts of terrorism.

Instead of bombing in Syria the US and it's allies should have been implementing a UN no-fly zone that would have kept Russia out of the conflict. Now a quarter of a million Syrians have died because we have been pouring petrol on the flames, when we should have been trying to put out the fire. Will we ever learn that military action should be our very last resort, not the preferred tool of foreign policy?

Robert P Bruce - author www.TheGlobalRace.net
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gulshan Kumar Mar 1, 2016

United States double standard towards contributing to the global peace comes to the fore as U.S along with its allies has made Syria a battleground for no reason.The loss of life and property in Syria not only shows the bullying nature of US but also that it lacks human compassion.It's continuous export of war artillery to Pakistan shows its motive to check the the stupendous growth of India,who has already announced itself as the fastest growing economy in the world.I,seriously think US must reset it's foreign policy and be more prudent in supporting coup in countries like Syria,Afghanistan, Libya,Iraq etc.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henry Rech Mar 1, 2016

I think it is a mistake to paint the Assad regime as the agent provocateur. History does not begin in 2011. Over the years the Assad regime has fought off several Sunni based coups. It is clear the Syrian Sunnis want to control Syria, they are in the vast numerical majority. One can only imagine the extent of the ensuing genocide of the Alawites and their Christian and other minority group supporters if the Sunnis defeat Assad. The Assad regime and the Alawites are fighting for their survival. The US, effectively supporting the Sunni insurgency, thru its client states (mainly Saudi Arabia), has to be very careful. It is also effectively supporting the jihardist Safadist/Wahabist scourge that currently threatens the West.
- Henry Rech Mar 3, 2016
  
  It doesn't surprise.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Lord Byng Mar 1, 2016
  
  I wonder if more people should not be aware of the old Syrian saying, common among the Sunni: "Shia to Lebanon, Allawites to the wall."
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 1, 2016

Jeffrey D. Sachs sounds like another Stephen F, Cohen, the Princeton professor, who seeks relentlessly to defend Vladimir Putin. Here in this commentary he puts all the blame on the US-backed players for the outcome of this atrocious war in Syria, while exonerating the Assad regime, backed by powerful allies - Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah.
Sachs is a brilliant economist and might as well stick to this field. In his past commentaries on Syria and the sectarian Sunni-Shia divide that fuels the conflicts in the Middle East, he has said many times that Arabs, Turks and Iranians know each other "well enough through trade and war" in history and have all co-existed "for millennia." Hence outsiders, like Russia and the West, especially the CIA should leave them alone to sort out their differences without meddling. True, but will they be able to "lead the way to a stable order in the region?"
He seems to ignore that oil revenues corrupt leaders and plunge their countries into rivalry, power struggle and war. Oil money enables conservative Saudis to promote and export their strict interpretation of Islam - Wahhabism, which is seen as the fountainhead of Islamist extremism. Before the discovery and exploitation of oil, most people in the Arabian peninsula were nomads or fishers. The post World War II history in the Middle East had seen a series of miltary coups. Often natural resources evoked greed among military strongmen in Iraq and Libya to seize power. Although Egypt and Syria are not petrol states, but they had also had coups in history. With the exception of Iran and much of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Syrien and Turkey were part of the Ottoman Empire and carved up arbitrarily by European colonialists, disregarding ethnic, sectarian faultlines as a result of the Sykes-Picot agreement 100 years ago.
Sachs proposes "six principles" to end the war in Syria. His blow-by-blow account on the cause of the war may just be his personal view. No doubt Assad has more luck than Muammar Gaddafi, who had few friends in the international community. Unlike Syria, Libya lacks the sectarian fabric and strategic interests, that are valuable to Iran, whose effort to strengthen the "axis" from Tehran to Beirut via Damascus is a thorn in Riyahd's side. The Saudis together with Turkey and the Gulf States support the myriad of rebel groups fighting the Assad regime.
To end the war Sachs says the US should "cease both overt and covert operations" to topple Assad. He also says the UN Security Council should urge "all countries, including the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Iran, to stop arming and funding military forces within Syria." This wouldn't happen, Russia is keen on keeping the Alawite regime in power, with or without Assad, in order to protect its interests in Syria - a naval base in Tartus and an air base near Latakia. If "all paramilitary activities should cease, including those of so-called “moderates” backed by the US," this would allow Assad to recapture the whole country and to consolidate power. Does Sachs support the idea? It does no harm that Assad stops settling scores with "regime opponents." It may be wishful thinking that "political transition should take place gradually and with confidence building on all sides, rather than through an arbitrary, destabilizing rush to 'free elections'.” After five years of suffering and devastation, people have grown very impatient. "Finally, the Gulf States, Turkey, and Iran should be pressed to negotiate face to face on a regional framework that can ensure lasting peace." Is Sachs too optimistic about holding Syria together? Does he have no idea about the zero-sum mentality of the people in the Middle East?
- Wim Roffel Mar 6, 2016
  
  "After five years of suffering and devastation, people have grown very impatient"
  What people in Syria are most impatient for is peace - not some regime change with an unclear outcome.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee Mar 1, 2016
  
  @J von H
  US support for groups described at the time in the news as "moderates" predated Russian intervention.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jay Dixon Feb 29, 2016

"Up to that point, the violence was still containable?" Containable by what?

This is a lazy Oliver Stone-style conspiracy article that actually ignores the true nature of the conflict: Assad's regime had become increasingly oppressive against the poor disenfranchised Sunni majority, and reached a point that was inconsistent with human dignity. They protested against him, he massacred them, and they didn't care for being massacred. Thus began the armed revolt.

Assad's Sunni neighbors were not going to sit back and allow Assad to murder their coreligionists in his desperate attempt to keep power, so they backed the rebels, who at this point were mainly defending themselves against regime attacks.

America's mantra that Assad must go is nothing more at this point than a statement of the fact that Assad cannot govern Syria without murdering, torturing and expelling millions from the country, and that he should not be permitted to do so.

Unfortunately, the US, by its inaction has decided now that he can.
- Lord Byng Mar 1, 2016
  
  You make the author's point precisely. The question is to understand what really happened- and your narrative is not what happened. Marches by protesters were met with violence in places- but the regime was conciliatory, at first. Then came a massive flood of foreign jihadists over the borders, billions of dollars in arms, and hundreds of deaths of Syrian army and police. Which do you seriously think came first: Assad's government deploying the army, or Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and above all Israel seizing the opportunity to set Syria afire and dispose of an Iranian ally?
  
  And just when, since when, do you suppose those Sunni neighbors you mention cared one whit about Sunni coreligionists in Syria or anywhere else?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- kiers sohn Feb 29, 2016
  
  @Jay Dixon: since WHEN did the poor sunni fundamentalist become worthy of care from the American Right? F-16s to Pagistan etc etc. Face it, playing both sides.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Feb 29, 2016

This sounds more like a prayer for divine intervention than a realistic program for peace. The United States' conquest of Iraq upset a regional balance, but it has hardly directed Turkey and Saudi Arabia, or the Sunnis of Syria and Iraq in their response. The engaged nations and peoples may have to fight this one out. It will be difficult for any party to impose peace from the outside.
- Steve Hurst Feb 29, 2016
  
  @Paul
  '... the US have regularly backed some of the most violent jihadist groups in a cynical miscalculation that these proxies would do their dirty work and then somehow be pushed aside.'
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 29, 2016

It is obvious with a proxy war that the outside powers have to back off for any prospect of peace. The US talks to itself way too much. Its difficult to see the current US strategy working, the 'moderates' are not a cohesive entity - as assessed by US military - and bombing alone will not end the war.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.