That’s the Catch-22, because they tend to flower when the transition from autocratic to democratic rule takes place. It is a puzzlement!
That I do not think is at all true.
The countries in the region outside of the super-wealthy Gulf countries that have the least problems in radicalism and greater peace are those that are not taking the Rule by the Strongman path.
Focus on the Maghreb:
The Moroccan case, where there was not an explosion with the Arab spring, is one that where while there is a King that remains powerful, has been an evolution (imperfect but real) away from authoritarian to a hybrid of genuine parliamentarism and soft-authoritarianism hedged by
Had the current King continued the classic authoritarianism of his father, the Morocco would have exploded on the Arab spring. I remember well the 1990s and the cold boil. The economic reforms (economic liberalism giving more real opportunity - still incomplete and flawed but improving) and the political reforms (imperfect but evolving in a positive direction) combined made 2011 only a hiccup to the Moroccan case. The implication of the lead Islamist party in the government and now leading it has also been positive in showing a non-radical path and giving paths to frustration, undermining the Radical Narrative.
The Tunisian case is still new and incomplete, but the path for non-radical expression remains popular amongst the majority and the hard line factions did badly in the elections. Without the hell of Libya serving as a pump of the weapons and the damaged youth back in to the Tunisia, I would say they would be doing very well. Their case also was the cold boil under the regime Ben Ali - I was living part time then in Tunis - the authoritarian regime made much of the radicalism. It was the still non-authoritarian routes and experiences that helped prevent explosion like we saw then in all the others.
There is no doubt this is a significant contributor (not the only, but one that creates more mass support).
The idea it is the solution is madness.
It is the americans lack of any sense of the history beyond the very superficial and grossly distorted (like the naive comments made here about secularism, showing no idea that in fact secularism was once popular, and it was self-discredited via these very supposedly secular dictators / authoritarians. When a people only have experience with an idea and a system via a bad, corrupt, abusive model, then of course it will not be popular).
They go to a lot of trouble to cherry pick and partially quote etc. It is indeed fundamental to their propaganda. Their scholarship and their cherry-picking and their gross distortions have been savagely critiques by a huge body of the established scholars, from the conservative to the liberal.
Unfortunately there has emerged this tendency to give DAESH credit, and thus play into their own propaganda game. A bizarre stupidity.
Yes, they are (although strict and literal are errors - an ad-hoc and instrumentalized as they omit things that they do not like, they jump over limitations they find annoying - even things that are well established (for example the mourning period for widows before remarriage).
They are developing a Fantasy Novel version of the Medieval period, which has the superficial dressing, but is in fact somethign modern underneath the clothing, selected for the superficial aspects most appealing to those who want some justification for violence - it is a Clockwork Orange theology.
The problematic part is the assertion in the article, based on a particular scholar that the DAESH theology is classical and well grounded (or even in good correspondence with the old classical or medieval theology).
No one unbiased can agree with that.
this is taking their Agitation-Propaganda Theology far too seriously. They will change their tune the moment it becomes inconvenient.
It is doubtful to me there are ‘tens of thousands’ who are really very ideologically committed to any of these points, except the foreign fighters living their pathological fantasy life in the Fantasy Novel medieval caliphate vision they’ve been given, like some sick version of the strange Renfaire things people talk about here.
Much of their local support is really more about the frustration of the oppressed Sunni rural people. Address this and like during the Iraqi Sunni Awakening effort of the Americans, the tribes and population will turn on these people (who are Al Qaeda recycled).
What do you mean, “force the reconstitution of the old map?” There is no territory that ever left the legitimate claim of Syria or Iraq. The maps have not changed. Iraq and Syria still have the same borders even though ISIL is occupying some part of both.
The UN Charter specifically forbids states from threatening the territorial integrity of any state. That means it’s basically a violation of international law to consider the borders of Iraq and Syria to be void or illegitimate.
After ISIL is gone, the land that belongs to Syria and Iraq goes back to those countries. Just like if someone steals your TV, you get it back when the thief is caught. So, Foggy and TheSeaOtter are completely correct. The US, Russia, NATO, China, and everyone else have no damn business arguing anything to the contrary.
Fargle.
Why would Russia or Iran want to partition off part of Syria???
The de facto map has changed.
It is a violation for other states. There is no problem with the people within the de jure borders rearranging things.
Not if the “Syria” government that survives the war, or is constituted at its end, no longer claims all the same land as the Assad regime.
Doesn’t matter. The de facto possession of your TV in the thief’s hands doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong to you.
Sure, if Iraq and Syria want to redraw borders, that’s between them and we stay out of it.
That is incorrect. Borders are dispositive under law - changes in governments doesn’t mean that a country’s borders change. If France collapses tomorrow, it doesn’t mean that Germany can grab whatever pieces it wants.
A better analogy might be: If the Ukraine government collapses, that doesn’t mean Russia can grab Crimea. Oh wait, that’s not so good an analogy… 
This wouldn’t work? If you have red ants and blue ants that hate each other, and you pick up one of their hives and move it somewhere that they don’t bump into the wrong color ant very often, the fighting slows down. Ditto if you separate 2 squabbling kids. Or a married couple. Physical separation works.
But this doesn’t actually cause physical separation. Everyone stays right where they are, with the same problems they’ve always had. The only difference is now they’ve got an inherently unequal and irreconcilable division of territory and natural resources to fight over in addition to whatever was bugging them before.
And they’re not ants, they’re people, so they know exactly what you’re doing to them.
First of all, the red and blue ants then get equally pissed off at Farmer John for telling them that they have to leave their ant families and ant farms behind to go live somewhere that they don’t want to.
Second, you need to enforce the separation somehow, and that makes things worse. The symbol of separation can be very powerful and be an inspiration for more violence in some cases. Think of the “peace walls” that divide the West Bank from Israel or other occupied territories, or the walls in Belfast. They are symbols of discord, violence, and even oppression, as opposed to peace and security.
Third, the foreign powers are wading into issues they barely understand. They aren’t referees making sure everyone plays fairly, they are like the nosy neighbor who sees a domestic disturbance down the block and decides to become involved. How often do you think that works out well for the interloper?
This is an incredibly naive view of things. International boundaries change all the time after wars, agreed to as peace settlements. If Assad signs a peace treaty that gives up some land in return for him staying in power over a smaller Syria thats legal. If his arm is twisted into signing it by the 5 permanents on the Security council thats just the nature of geopolitics.
Assad signs a peace treaty with whom in this silly scenario? And I’m the naive one?
With the FSA and the Kurds, but thats just a hypothetical example not what I’m saying should happen. Theres lots of ways this could play out, but “everyone goes back to the old borders and we hope this doesn’t happen again” is extremely unlikely.
No, it’s virtually certain.
Based on what? Certainly not on much understanding of history. Here’s an animation of all the border changes in the middle east from 1900-2011. Its not exactly static is it?
You keep talking like a partition is just something that would be imposed on them. Like the people of the former Syria don’t have plenty of good reasons of their own to want to go separate ways. 
Emphasis added. Did you read the OP? That is the proposition being put forth.
No, you misunderstand me. As others have pointed out Iraq and Syria have already been defacto partitioned already. The central government of Iraq hasn’t had control of Iraqi Kurdistan since 1991. Rather than a case of forces from outside imposing a partition its how to make the lines on maps match the reality on the ground that the locals have already imposed. (Minus ISIS of course).