My thought about allowing evacuation of extremists from Syria to Iraq was that, if there's somewhere that they want to go, why not allow them to leave Syria? That's less damaging to Syria than killing a lot of other people while trying to kill the extremists.
It won't be difficult to keep tabs on them when they're living somewhere else, will it? You have a few extremist leaders who are the most important to track, and then varying degrees of their followers who might be content to try to start lives that are as normal as possible. War is tiring, and, after a while, boring.
It doesn't seem as if everyone thinks that Iraq is worthless.
One of this writer's themes is something that I have read from other writers about the Middle East, which is that a country's fragmentation after authoritarian government ends is to be expected and considered in post-regime planning.
Quotes:
______
Article:
________________________
If I'm not mistaken, "independence" in that article refers to independence from Europe during the 20th century.
This is at Google:
I think that one phase of a cycle follows another. Authoritarian government imposed on fragmentation, authoritarian government challenged by a country that wants political freedom; it's at this stage that a leader can prove that he cares about his country or not. If Mr. Assad hadn't insisted that Syria be forced to serve his sovereignty, that country could have matured. Instead, he forced it into chaos and dragged it backward.
Isn't the real problem with European and then American post-regime involvement in the Middle East always racism? The assumption that people who aren't white are incapable of responsible government shouldn't be the basis of foreign policy; it precludes effective decisions and guarantees future conflict.
