Anyway, since Assad doesn't want to go and most of the Syrian people don't want Assad to stay, the conflict militarized in a big way. And even after Assad is gone, the conflict won't immediately de-militarize:
The top American intelligence official, James R. Clapper Jr., said that even if Mr. Assad’s government fell, sectarian fighting would most likely engulf the country for a year or more. The American ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, warned that without a negotiated political transition, supporters of the Assad government, “fearing death, would fight to the death.”
Raising the issue of post-Assad Syria does at least undermine the narrative that Syria is stalemated. I don't think it is stalemated. I think the rebels are winning and that news of rebel advances around the periphery of Syria show that Assad is slowly abandoning outer areas of his realm to defend Damascus and the Alawite core. It is even becoming possible to track rebel advances around Damascus itself:
In Damascus you can trace the progress of the war by noting the train and bus schedules. The passenger trains stopped operating six months ago while the bus schedules change regularly, with busses no longer running to more and more suburban areas and neighborhoods where the rebels are advancing. This year the rebels are always advancing.
Given the casualties endured so far, the rebels might not want to keep pressing on to destroy Assad's faction after capturing Damascus if the casualties would be too high. And Iran seems determined to make sure that Assad can fight to the death in their corner of Syria, as Strategypage describes:
Iranian support for the beleaguered Assad government of Syria has not diminished. A growing number of pro-Assad fighters are being flown to Iran for training in special urban fighting and irregular warfare tactics. Iran is helping Assad to build a special infantry force of men trained in urban warfare. Iran is paying for support from the Hezbollah Shia militia of Lebanon, which is supplying Assad with gunmen and supplies. Many Syrians (especially the Sunni majority) believe that when the Assad government falls Iran support partition of the country and will result in the establishment of a Shia state along the Syrian coast where most of the population is Alawite (a Shia sect that about ten percent of Syrians belong to).
Since the beginning of the major fighting, I've felt that reducing his realm to one his forces could hold was Assad's best hope to survive. Over time, I've shrunk the amount of territory I think Assad's shrinking forces can hold.
Of course, a negotiated settlement could turn out to be a ceasefire while the various sides arm up for the next round. Losses can do that. Sometimes a limited objective that seemed worth it when you've lost 500 people seems too small to justify 50,000 dead.
Or people can just be exhausted. It can go either way.
And some objectives just can't be compromised. Especially for those on a mission from God (as Strategypage likes to put it), you don't negotiate with God's will--you only carry it out.
For us, if bad guys are willing to fight to the "death" against each other, should we really get in the way of that? What was the comment about the Iran-Iraq War? It was a shame that both couldn't lose?
In a perfect world, I'd rather settle Syria with a victory over the thugs and jihadis that has the relative stability of death for the bad guys as a foundation. Dead guys don't stage comebacks, no? The example of Moqtada al Sadr in Iraq is a case in point showing that bad guys should be sent off for the dirt nap.
Mind you, I'm willing to consider whether some form of negotiated settlement might be better than the risk of chemical arms proliferating amidst an al Qaeda resurgence in Syria. If such a deal can get all the non-jihadi factions lined up to crush the jihadis, that might be better than a more complete victory over Assad's faction that leads to chemical weapons in the hands of jihadis.
And Lebanon could be ignited whether Assad loses big and his people flee to safer areas that Hezbollah controls there; or if a rump Alawite state in Syria (whether Assad retreats to it under fire or as part of a negotiated settlement) wants to unofficially expand into Lebanon for depth and support.
In any case, Syria is a lesson that what we want and what we do or don't do aren't the only thing that matters in the world. So many times, people think that we are responsible for whatever happens and disregard other actors. Despite our best naive intentions not to militarize the Syrian dispute, here we are 70,000+ dead later with a conflict that will continue even after Assad checks out of the palace.
Amazingly enough, people will fight for things that don't seem important to us.
