[devx]

The right thing would be to convince Assad to offer a truce, step down, and allow a democratic election to happen. He'd have to be given protection, too, otherwise he'd never agree to stop, because he'd fear too much for his life.

Of course, even if they do convince Assad of that, it doesn't mean things will go smoothly. The "rebels" might still be upset if they lose the election, which is why it's so important UN or whoever needs to guarantee fair elections. It's the least they can do to appease the rebels, so they don't want to start the civil war all over again. They could even guarantee some sort of remuneration from the state for all the people who lost a family member in the war.

This is the least violent, and best solution for everyone involved.

[rdl]

IMO the right thing to do would be to solve just the chemical weapon problem, and solve it in the most limited way possible.

Have Assad escrow his chemical forces with the Russians at the Russian naval base in Syria (Tartus), on the basis of "you may have lost control of your forces; they must be kept safe so there will be no unauthorized use."

Other than that, focus purely on helping the civilians. I dislike both Assad and the rebels (the AQ/etc. groups), and don't want either to win. I also don't want them to fight forever, because it is killing civilians.

We should provide secure IDP facilities within Syria (either camps or protected cities), with real force (so we never again have another Srebrenica), or just focus on providing what infrastructure we can (free internet/phone/tv/etc. from Rivet Joints and UAVs and cross-border, medical supplies, etc.).

Taking sides doesn't really help.

(Letting Assad step down and go into comfortable exile in Iran or Russia would be fine, too, but making regime change a requirement to deal with chemical weapons seems to be an overcomplication.)

[s_q_b]

Looks like you nailed it: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/kerry-say...

[s_q_b]

This is exactly spot-on.

My only addition would be that the rebel groups must be inspected to determine whether they have gained control of any chemical stockpiles.

[rdl]

Definitely -- all chemical weapons should be escrowed. I'd be ok with doing a 1 for 1 swap of chemical for conventional weapons in exchange, if required, if the goal is just to get rid of the chemical weapons.

[s_q_b]

Exactly. That's smart foreign policy. A limited definable goal, preservation of the norm of prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, and a way to accomplish it that respects the interests of each of the parties.

[riggins]

The right thing would be to convince Assad to offer a truce

According to Juan Cole (who IMO has a pretty good feel for the Middle East), Assad has the backing of ~50% of the population.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/bombing-unlikely-effective.h...

this is not a war by an outside force like the Serbs of ethnic cleansing against a neighbor, but rather it is a civil war. The Alawis, Christians and secular-minded Sunnis in Syria are afraid of the rebel forces and either support or are neutral toward the Syrian government; together they may well come to half the country. That isn’t exactly a mandate for outside intervention.

I don't think its just Assad driving this.

[chatmasta]

"may well come to half"

Is that how we say "50%" nowadays?

[ibrow]

But then you look at Egypt. It once seemed so hopeful and now it appears to descending ever more into violence and civil war. What's to say that even if they do have fair elections unrest will continue.

[speeder]

Democracy is.not a solution for Syria. Mind you, about 60% of the population there belong to a group that hate the other 40% and would happily vote to kill them all. This is why Assad has so many people in Syria on his side.

[shimon_e]

Assad isn't rational anymore.