Syrian jigsaw

Tweet

Beware of anyone, anywhere, who tells you they have a plan for defeating ISIS. Chances are they're trying to sell you something. They do this because it's an easy sell. We all want an end to ISIS, to the conflict in Syria, to the bloody refugee crisis, so we buy into hawkish rhetoric with an eagerness born of ignorance and hope. Sadly, however, none of these problems are going to be resolved by soundbite strategies. The bitter truth is that Syria has become a playground for a multitude of conflicting ideologies and although each player has an endgame in mind, it is not necessarily one which coalesces with any other. There are diverse humanitarian and nationalistic goals. There are allegiances which owe more to Sunni-Shia tensions than anything else. There is the small matter of a shaky Saudi Arabia being custodian of the Hajj. There is the Kurdish question, and the Israeli one. Never mind where the fighting is, this war has spilled across many borders. It may, in fact, be the first true non-linear war. (A recent Telegraph article, "The world's determination to defeat Isil is a myth", has a good rundown on what some of these endgames might be, but as the piece is now a week old and written before the Russians and Turks started yelling at each other, there's no chance it can be completely accurate.) This may all sound rather complicated, but in fact we're just getting started. What, for instance, is the best way to smash ISIS completely? It has been suggested that a primary aim should be to destroy pipelines which supply not only oil but considerable riches to the ISIS monster, but this strategy addresses only a very small part of the overall problem. The great bulk of ISIS' wealth comes from the territory it controls. To take back that territory - and keep it - will require many more warm bodies in Syria and a shared ambition which simply doesn't exist at present. If, however, you do think that more bombs, drones and boots on the ground is the best way forward, keep in mind what the shooting down of a Russian jet has done to an already fragile situation. Keep in mind, too, that it is only a few weeks ago that a hospital in Afghanistan was destroyed by the good guys, an all-too-familiar mishap in the fog of war. Can anyone honestly say that a repeat of these "tragic accidents" is unlikely, or that the fallout would be handled well? Beyond these immediate problems are far greater ones. What happens if or when ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq? Who takes charge in these badly fractured nations? Are they likely to be partitioned as Berlin was many moons ago? Who gets to decide? And isn't it a mistake to think of ISIS as an army anyway, when the reality is far more frightening? For this is not simply a war against men with guns. As recent attacks in Tunisia, Mali, France, Turkey, Nigeria and elsewhere have demonstrated, the soldiers of ISIS are also armed with an ideology that may be the most potent weapon of all.