Looking over the horizon: how to better build stability, this time in Syria

In the wake of another foreign-inspired terrorist attack in the United States, and despite domestic politicking, we should keep our eye on the role that failed states and instability in the Middle East is playing. We must look at the rise of ISIL as a consequence of systemic weakness and repeated failings to adequately understand and plan for post-conflict environments. Born out of the chaos of Iraq and now feeding off the continued collapse of Syria, ISIL’s presence inspires terrorists in the US and around the world.

So, as the Syrian civil war continues into its sixth year and the fight against ISIL inexorably rumbles on, the question remains for the U.S. government and its closest allies – how best to plan for Syrian peace and stability?

{mosads}U.S. policy on Syria has developed into a muddy mix of incomplete strategies, diverging objectives and compromise. The desire to see Syrian peace and ISIL’s defeat competes with maintaining a variety of strategically important relationships in the Middle East, while countering an expeditionary Russia on the world stage. UN-led peace negotiations involving the Assad regime and a wealth of actors have stalled, again. So, over the horizon of today’s complex Syrian conflict we need to seek out, plan for and start talking about alternative agendas for peace.

Learning from the shortcomings of attempts to build stability in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, there is a real opportunity to do different in Syria. Stabilization is an approach that integrates the combined weight of diplomatic, security and developmental capacities under unified direction to grow the conditions for stability. It neither contradicts nor prejudges any peace process.

Some point out that soon, Syria could develop into a mosaic of fledgling localized pockets of peace. The Kurdish north is already one such area. Planning for what comes next is critical. That means working with the most local level of politics, rather than any predatory and distant government. Identifying local actors, and talking about local areas of concern amidst their culture creates an alternative to the entrenched violence generated by terrorism and inter-state competition.

No one wants Syria to become a patchwork of fiefdoms, propped up by the military force of various international actors, be they from the region or further afield. This is why growing a national identity and consciousness is so important, and another critical lesson emerging from recent nation-building missions. The Geneva Communiques have outlined the skeleton of governance for a future Syria but there is much meat to be put on the bones.  Common values, norms, and inspirations that bind people together must be drawn out into the open.

That the key to Syrian stability is in the hands of Syrians is easy to say, but it requires resolve to nurture and develop. We know not to listen to ambitious exiles – as in Iraq – or to simply transplant our own values onto a traditional society – as in Afghanistan. Unsavory voices will need to be part of that debate but the challenge of garnering a wide range of Syria’s voices – at home or displaced – can be met with the innovation of the digital age. Our role is to grow the political conversation, not orchestrate it.

Peace cannot be imposed from the outside, and indeed foreign interventions can exacerbate and perpetuate factional conflict. That we tried this before, and came up short, does not necessarily mean that the desire to build a stable nation is flawed or wrong. The challenge is in implementation, and the lessons are there to be learned.

Syria necessitates a different approach from recent conflict, not least in the absence of an international peacekeeping force. In Iraq and Afghanistan it was the neighbors – Iran and Pakistan, respectively – who were critical to understanding and influencing those conflicts. This means the U.S. must adapt to the regional context and creatively use its influence, take the search for peace online and enlist those with a stake in a stable Syria.

U.S. leadership on the world stage will be judged on its ability to resolutely pursue peace amidst the Syrian conflict. The narrative of stabilization offers a way to talk about peace, not conflict, and to create an alliance of those who can apply coercion, funds and influence in the direction of stability.

Matt Freear is an adjunct fellow at the American Security Project, and has served as an advisor to the US, UK, UN, EU and AU on security and stabilization in Kenya, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq.