Syria, the End of ‘Neither-Nor’

Bashar al-Assad cannot be defeated militarily. It’s the conclusion at which the United States has arrived. They note that in a Syria that has been divided by four years of war, two forces dominate: Daesh (the Islamic State), in the north and the east; the army and the pro-Assad militia in the center and the west. Between the two, other guerillas still control certain territories, but they cannot represent a credible alternative.

Faced with this situation, Washington believes that the greatest danger to American security is the Islamic State group. Through its desire for conquests, this jihadi organization is in fact a destabilizing factor for the whole Middle East. Moreover, it is spreading far from its Iraqi-Syrian base, to Africa and Afghanistan. Last, it is recruiting thousands of young, Western Muslims, who over time are representing a threat to their country of origin’s security, in Europe, North America, Australia … The Islamic State group also poses a remarkable moral challenge through the violence of their ill treatment of the people under their control.

The American secretary of state, John Kerry, drew a conclusion about this on March 15, on the television channel CBS: “We have to negotiate [with Assad] in the end … Because everybody agrees there is no military solution. There is only a political solution.” France, the United Kingdom and Turkey immediately condemned this opinion, arguing that the Syrian dictator could not be part of a negotiation for a political settlement of the civil war. In fact, to have discussions with Bashar al-Assad would be immoral; he cannot be considered an ally or a usual contact. But the search for peace is a greater moral aim, if it allows for an end to the suffering of millions of refugees and the end of the greatest humanitarian disaster since World War II, according to the United Nations. The “neither-nor” of France – neither the Islamic State group nor Assad – ends up being unrealistic and, consequently, also unethical.