Will the UN / Russian peace plan for Syria work?

[FlikTheBlue]

The UN has passed a resolution for a plan to begin ending the Syrian conflict.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/russia-us-syria-talks-isis/

After Years of War in Syria, U.N. Passes Resolution on Talks (Published 2015)

It looks to me as if this is mostly a Russian plan which does not have a specific timetable for the removal of Assad. The plan calls for elections in 18 months, but seems to leave open the possibility that Assad can run in that election. I’m certain this or any other plan will not entirely eliminate the violence in Syria. My question is do you all think that this plan will help prevent ISIS terrorism in the future?

The way I see it, this will probably end up leaving Assad in power, but also help eliminate ISIS strength with Russian and maybe even Iranian help. It also seems that Turkey’s influence in Syria may be diminished. In exchange, Russia gets to retain it’s influence, with Assad possibly staying in power. Given the recent events in Paris and San Bernardino, I think it’s time we come around to the idea that leaving Assad in power might be better for civilians in the West. As an example I cite the second Iraq war, where it seems we would have been better off leaving Saddam in place. So here is the debate.

1. Is my brief synopsis of why Russia put forth this plan correct?
2. Will this help reduce ISIS terrorism in the West?
3. I think it goes without saying that I don’t need to ask if this plan will lead to a peaceful Syria. It obviously won’t, but I don’t think that their is any plan that will result in a peaceful Syria. We therefore have to choose from the least bad of a bad set of options, and I wonder if this is that option.

[John_Mace]

It calls for “credible, inclusive and nonsectarian governance” within six months and “free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution,” within 18 months.

I’m sure Da-esh will jump on board with this. Credible, inclusive and nonsectarian governance within 6 months? Are you fucking kidding me??? Dd they misspell “years”?

[Grumman]

@John_Mace

I’m sure Da-esh will jump on board with this.

They’re not invited. At heart, the peace plan appears to be “everyone who is not ISIL stops fighting to go kill ISIL” - a peace plan I can certainly get behind.

[XT]

It looks to me as if this is mostly a Russian plan which does not have a specific timetable for the removal of Assad. The plan calls for elections in 18 months, but seems to leave open the possibility that Assad can run in that election. I’m certain this or any other plan will not entirely eliminate the violence in Syria. My question is do you all think that this plan will help prevent ISIS terrorism in the future?

I only read the first article (skimmed it really), so maybe I’m missing something, but it doesn’t look like a ‘mostly’ ‘Russian plan’ to me. It looks like a pretty vague UN plan that Russia and other countries have signed onto, but that doesn’t specifically do that much. From the first linked article:

Russia and the United States both approved the resolution, even though it doesn’t address the major issue separating those two nations: What will happen to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? Russia supports Assad but the United States wants him removed.

Still, the accord was hailed as a major step toward bringing peace to Syria, where a civil war has killed millions and sent thousands of refugees fleeing into other nations.

“It’s going to be uphill,” said U.N. Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura. “It will be complicated. But it will be possible.”

“This council is sending a clear message to all concerned,” Kerry said. “The time is now to stop the killing in Syria and to lay the groundwork for a government the people of that battered land can support.”

Besides recognizing the 17-nation International Syrian Support Group’s efforts in the peace process, the resolution provides a rough timeline for political change in Syria.

It calls for “credible, inclusive and nonsectarian governance” within six months and “free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution,” within 18 months.

The resolution, which passed 15-0, seeks a ceasefire in Syria. Kerry said that ceasefire would not include ISIS.

The way I see it, this will probably end up leaving Assad in power, but also help eliminate ISIS strength with Russian and maybe even Iranian help. It also seems that Turkey’s influence in Syria may be diminished. In exchange, Russia gets to retain it’s influence, with Assad possibly staying in power. Given the recent events in Paris and San Bernardino, I think it’s time we come around to the idea that leaving Assad in power might be better for civilians in the West. As an example I cite the second Iraq war, where it seems we would have been better off leaving Saddam in place. So here is the debate.

Where are you getting this from? Again, the first article:

Russia is now agreeing to the drafting of a new constitution and new elections, a position that has evolved over the last few months.

But Fred Hof, a former top U.S. diplomat handling Syria now at the Atlantic Council, warned that regardless of Assad’s fate, until Russia and Iran are willing to press him to stop bombing the Syrian people, there is little hope the political process will yield any results and that the bloodshed will end.

“Stopping the mass murder is a good place to start,” he said. “How the hell do you sit down for a peace process featuring compromise when one of the parties doesn’t accept the rules of the game and the other party’s constituency is being blown away on a daily basis?”

He continued, “The first symptom of Assad being under control would be an end to the collective punishment and mass homicide and only then would the Syrian people truly have a chance to decide their fate.”

1. Is my brief synopsis of why Russia put forth this plan correct?

As far as I can tell, no. It’s not a Russian plan, and your synopsis of the very vague plan seems to be way off. Maybe you are talking about something in the second article?

2. Will this help reduce ISIS terrorism in the West?

Gods know. The ‘plan’, such as it is, seems pretty vague. Certainly, the only resolution in Syria is going to be a political one in the end. We can continue to bomb the crap out of ISIS and Russia can continue to bomb Kurds, Turks, other rebel groups and occasionally ISIS, but as long as Assad continue to bomb his own people indiscriminately there is never going to be any stability. First step is getting Assad out. Second is to get ISIS out. Third step is ??? But the forth step is…PROFIT!!!

[FlikTheBlue]

@XT

Where are you getting this from? Again, the first article

Those are my thoughts on what was actually going on behind the scenes. Basically it seems to me like the USA was forced to go along with some kind of plan after recent events. The Paris and San Bernardino attacks and Turkey shooting down the Russian plane have gotten us to the point where we (the USA) have agreed to a plan that leaves Assad in power. I think Obama has finally realized that we didn’t have any other path forward other than US boots on the ground. Leaving Assad in power is one of Russia’s goals, which is why I’m calling it a Russian plan.

[DinoR]

Define “works.”

None of the combatants in the multi-sided mess inside Syria were represented at the Vienna conference. This was the one thing that came out of the talks by the outside powers. The resolution is a broad brushed plan to form a transitional government and then have elections. The transitional government doesn’t magically come with effective security forces. Even with an election (and good luck holding one without significant security effort on the ground) there’s a lot of people that don’t suddenly lose their weapons. Any significant faction that doesn’t agree with the results can continue fighting. It’s important to recognize that the Assad regime, with the current armed forces, could be one of those factions fighting the new government if Assad can’t run or loses.