I am not, obviously, promoting violence, but I do think that it is not always something we can control. My reference was primarily to the de facto autonomous Kurdish regions which came into being out of a power vacuum which was in turn, caused by violence. Ideally, what we all want to see, probably, are genuine humanitarian interventions - be it in Syria or the Ukraine or indeed Palestine - but that's a utopian dream.
A state structure is not quite the same as geographic extent. Of course Bismarck shaped modern Germany. I was referring to the Westphalian declaration of state sovereignty principle in international relations which became the foundational blue-print for all state structures. It applied equally to marginal states like the Prince-Bishopric of Osnabruck or the superpowers of the day like Sweden.
Germany was deeply divided ethnically, linguistically and religiously which is why, much of the war was fought along its fault-lines. Arguably, one of the reasons as to why the Middle East is such a fulcrum of conflict is because it is a place of antagonistically overlapping interests which are to find a less violent discourse of settlement - much like Europe prior to 1648.
There is a massive difference here.
The Treaty of Westphalia was the conclusion of a long war in 1648. Syria, as a country did not exist then. The principles acce[ted by the European combatants for statehood were accepted by the parties in Europe, they were thrust upon the inhabitants of the Middle East. Those parties that took this treaty to heart, and made governance and rule of law foundations of the state (Prussia, Austria) would naturally eclipse their more brutal or less capable neighbors.
The instrument of government in places like Syria does not, as in the West, derive from a mandate of the governed, the people, it rests as a balance of tribal and political influences that leave large segments of the governed society alienated and preyed upon. The 'state' is the problem, not the solution in the ME.
The ethnic differences in Germany are nothing compared the shatter zones of the Middle East. We are talking about an area of the world that has been ruled by Pagan Romans, Egyptians, Turks, Crusader Western Armies, Persians, Arabs, various Caliphates, and Mongols. Its no accident that Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are some of the key influencers in the current fight.
Make no bones about the religious difference either. We are fortunate that the Christian religion does not explicitly spell out the Christian rulership of its domain. How do you impose a ruler simply because he is a descendant of the Prophet, incapable, on a largely Suna population who sees and acknowledges no such validity in the concept? The reverse? A man who claims no descent from the Prophet ruling Shia? Unfathomable.
We are talking about political, ethnic, cultural, and religious differences that virtually guarantee that the parties cannot coexist within the confines of a state (and indeed, they do not).
Each of the parties, separately, would probably accept the generality of modern statehood, but under the same roof is where they have problems.
As others have pointed out, South Sudan and Sudan were never going to co-exist peacefully under the same roof. Now South Sudan exists as a separate country, with the decades long struggle leaving behind huge and horrible scars on the residual and emerging state.
Violence has already torn the state of Syria and Iraq apart. For any party to regain full control of 'Syria' as it is currently drawn on the map would be a massively bloody thing. To retain that control would require massive repression and violence, or, too be blunt, genocide. There is no Abraham Lincoln in Syria preaching malice toward none. We are talking about a the geo-political equivalent of a knife fight, where the various parties will absolutely destroy the other (a reality that is in no small part driving the refugee crisis).
There are Nations, or collection of Nations, that have the strength and ability to impose limits on this destructive zero sum game. There seems little point in avoiding the obvious: A rump Shia/Alawite State with ties to Iran and Russia, a Rump Suna State with ties to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and the retention of an autonomous Kurdish Region along the Southern Border of Turkey. (The same for Iraq). These are already the divisions on the ground.
As an Iraq vet, to see the fighting in exactly the same places we fought just recently is, unfortunately, not a shock. Fallujah/Ramadi - Tikrit - Mosul, this was the fault line of our conflict there. Here it is again.
How many more times must this line demonstrate itself before we accept it? How many billions must the US spent trying to push that line a little further West? Ramadi is Suna. The attempt to impose Shia rule there brought the most technologically advanced military the world has ever seen to a stand still (The Suna Awakening had more to do with stability that temporarily arose than our military might). It has repelled the proxies of Iran and the USA, and continuously defies military effort to reimpose 'state' control over the area.
These are a people with no love for ISIS. Baathists. And yet they accept that and violently resist the alternative state from Baghdad. The Treaty of Westphalia means nothing in Ramadi. Not wanting to have your sons drug out in the night because a suspicious Shia government has branded those sons a threat? That does matter to these people.
The consent of the governed from which state power is ultimately drawn is speaking loud and clear in Iraq/Syria. The question now is what are the states imbued with power and the ability to do anything at all about it going to do about it?
I suppose we could just keep dropping 20 or so bombs a day and dumping money that is being syphoned off either by a corrupt Iraqi Army or a 'training base' in Syria that simply does not exist (tacitly arming the very forces we are trying to disempower), but why?
The Russians are pretty clear. Hezbollah is pretty clear. Iran is pretty clear. Saudi Arabia is pretty clear. Turkey is pretty clear. The Kurds are pretty clear. We however, are not ... nd yet we are pouring money and resources into the situation that are being abused by those with actual skin in the game.
Enough.
Its time to tell some parties that they have failed (Syria controlled by Alawites/Iraq by Shia from Baghdad) and others that we are listening.
This is ultimately what brought peace to another shatter zone ... the Balkans. Why we invest so much blood and treasure for the sake of lines on a map that mean nothing to either us or the people on the ground underneath these lines continues to simply baffle me.
