What do you think is the end game in Syria?

[phk]

For me

Optimistic
The FSA decrees that once Assad has been pushed out that there will be guarantees against Sunni reprisal against Alawites and Christians. The West could back the FSA but than deploy troops to enforce this guarantee. Another scenario is create a state for Alawites and Christians north of Lebanon and leave a land-locked Sunni state. If anything the West was too slow in backing the FSA and should have done so before the global Sunni fundo brigade decided to.

Pessimistic
A protracted Iraq-style sectarian civil war. This has the potential to be dangerous as Sunnis from other hot-spots such as Afghanistan/Iraq and Saudi Arabia trickle into Syria. Syria's Alawites are a lot easier to hate from their point of view than Iraq's Twelvers.  Hezbollah could easily come in and take the side of the Alawites and go on a wrecking tour of anti-Assad areas.

[Mr. Morden]

I lean more towards pessimistic.  There's a good chance that Assad is out of Damascus within a few months, but the sectarian civil war continues for years after that.  It's not like Libya, which didn't have nearly as much of a sectarian component in the uprising.

Btw, Assad is clearing the way for an Alawite mini-state if it comes to that:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/27/alawistan

But even if that happens, my guess is that the two sides keep killing each other for a long time to come, probably years, a la Iraq.

[SPC]

After receiving NATO assistance in toppling Assad and preventing Assad from establishing a rump state on the Syrian coast, the Sunni thugs look to guidance from the Rwandan Hutus for dealing with the Christians, Alawites, and Kurds. "Humanitarians" remain silent after being ecstatic over the removal of a dictator. Tons of refugees flow into Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq, bringing political instability with them.

In order words, take a summary of Libya and play Mad Libs with it.

[SPC]

Of course, since I used Libya as the basis for that prediction, that would probably constitute an "optimistic" viewpoint. The Iraq blueprint would be much the same, only using NATO groundtroops to topple Assad and fight on behalf of Sunni thugs against opposition groups on the pretense of battling "Hezbollah."

[dead0man]

Optimistic

I'm guessing we're going to get 3 new states out of this, with the Kurds being the big winners.  And deservedly so.

[True Federalist]

An Alawite State is a remote possibility, but not an independent Syrian Kurdistan.  For obvious tho different reasons, neither Turkey nor the UN would back such a move, and any partition of Syria will require at least one of the two to defend the splinter state(s) from the Sunni majority.

Besides, Syrian Kurdistan is very lightly populated.

[SPC]

An Alawite State is a remote possibility, but not an independent Syrian Kurdistan.  For obvious tho different reasons, neither Turkey nor the UN would back such a move, and any partition of Syria will require at least one of the two to defend the splinter state(s) from the Sunni majority.

Besides, Syrian Kurdistan is very lightly populated.

Will the recently autonomous Syrian Kurdistan retain de facto independence, and if not, will it be Turkey or the Sunni Arabs to crush their independence?

[Mr. Morden]

I don't see how partition actually solves the problem, since there will still be plenty of people in each party on the "wrong" side of the border, and the various parties will just keep fighting over borders.  Heck, look what's happening right now with South Sudan, and that's a case that was blessed by the UN.

[Platypus]

Tunisia level free, after Iraq level deaths. Peacekeepers post-conflict, but no or little international involvement until the air is clear, other than materiel and money, perhaps. No border change/new states.

[Cory]

Do you guys think that the rebels will seek to drive the pro-Assad rump state into the sea, or just let it be?

[So the Heroes Fall]

Do you guys think that the rebels will seek to drive the pro-Assad rump state into the sea, or just let it be?

The only acceptable places for Assad to be for the rebels is either a jail cell or a coffin.

[SPC]

Do you guys think that the rebels will seek to drive the pro-Assad rump state into the sea, or just let it be?

They will be as merciful to Assad's rump state as the Libyan thugs were to Gaddafi's rump state, assuming they have the means to do so.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Do you guys think that the rebels will seek to drive the pro-Assad rump state into the sea, or just let it be?

They will be as merciful to Assad's rump state as the Libyan thugs were to Gaddafi's rump state, assuming they have the means to do so.

LOL yes, the rebels were the thugs in Libya. Not Gaddafi.

[SPC]

Do you guys think that the rebels will seek to drive the pro-Assad rump state into the sea, or just let it be?

They will be as merciful to Assad's rump state as the Libyan thugs were to Gaddafi's rump state, assuming they have the means to do so.

LOL yes, the rebels were the thugs in Libya. Not Gaddafi.

Those aren't mutually exclusive positions.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Considering that the rebels started out as military units that rebelled after refusing to gun down unarmed protesters...

[SPC]

Considering that the rebels started out as military units that rebelled after refusing to gun down unarmed protesters...

And then all those African migrants mysteriously disappeared in areas under rebel control

[So the Heroes Fall]

That's not too surprising when most of them were Gaddafi-hired mercenaries.

[SPC]

That's not too surprising when most of them were Gaddafi-hired mercenaries.

The entire town of Tawergha consisted of mercenaries?

[Zioneer]

Do you guys think that the rebels will seek to drive the pro-Assad rump state into the sea, or just let it be?

They will be as merciful to Assad's rump state as the Libyan thugs were to Gaddafi's rump state, assuming they have the means to do so.

I know the rebels weren't innocent, but you're really trying to portray them as the bad guys here?

[SPC]

Do you guys think that the rebels will seek to drive the pro-Assad rump state into the sea, or just let it be?

They will be as merciful to Assad's rump state as the Libyan thugs were to Gaddafi's rump state, assuming they have the means to do so.

I know the rebels weren't innocent, but you're really trying to portray them as the bad guys here?

"the" implies that one of the sides was not guilty.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Do you guys think that the rebels will seek to drive the pro-Assad rump state into the sea, or just let it be?

They will be as merciful to Assad's rump state as the Libyan thugs were to Gaddafi's rump state, assuming they have the means to do so.

I know the rebels weren't innocent, but you're really trying to portray them as the bad guys here?

"the" implies that one of the sides was not guilty.

     The problem is that American liberals tend to view rebels in these conflicts in a rosy light that leads them to blindly support intervention in these foreign lands. While they may well be better than the dictators that they are seeking to oust, the rebels in Libya and Syria are still seriously questionable sorts.

[RodPresident]

Syrian seaside is the main Alawite-dominated area, then a Alawite-state solution wouldn't be accepted by new Syrian government. I think that Syria can go to be Lebanon 1975-90 minus direct foreign intervention or Afghanistan.
And a question: Is Hariri family of Lebanon helping rebels in Syria? Maybe a seek of revenge.

[Vosem]

Syrian seaside is the main Alawite-dominated area, then a Alawite-state solution wouldn't be accepted by new Syrian government. I think that Syria can go to be Lebanon 1975-90 minus direct foreign intervention or Afghanistan.
And a question: Is Hariri family of Lebanon helping rebels in Syria? Maybe a seek of revenge.

Assad would still be very well-armed if he retreated to the coast and he would probably get more backing from Russia (who doesn't want to see their base in Tartus ejected -- they couldn't care less about Damascus, which is why they've been moderating). But, yeah, the end-game is probably pessimistic, sectarian warfare (and foreign intervention from somewhere is inevitable) which may go on for decades. The coast breaking off may become inevitable.

[Cory]

The only acceptable places for Assad to be for the rebels is either a jail cell or a coffin.

But can they back that up? What if the Loyalists retreat to the coast and establish a strong defense-in-depth and possibly threaten to use chemical weapons? Does the Free Syrian Army even have the ability to drive them out without massive causalities on their side and the risk of WMD usage by Assad as a last-ditch measure to force them to allow the existence of his rump-state?