Those are good questions.

I’d argue that my proposal is a reasonable, humanitarian solution. The best way to achieve humanitarian goals would be to end the war. Stabilize Syria so fewer people die, no one else has to leave, and those who want to return home can do so without fearing for their lives. I recognize that there’s been immense humanitarian costs already, and there will be more. But minimizing that as much as possible requires ending the conflict. Or, at the very least, protecting and stabilizing the area in the northeast previously controlled by ISIS.

I think you’re right that any strategy would be difficult, and I share your skepticism that the understaffed, chaotic Trump administration could do a good job of executing it. We should have no illusions about that. The U.S. military would have to play a quasi-diplomatic role, much as it did later in the Iraq war to decent success.

That being said, getting everyone — or at least the most relevant players — to agree to the soft partition I’m proposing doesn’t require everyone trusting each other and agreeing on the best solution. It just requires establishing facts on the ground that everyone recognizes would be difficult to change, and then making sure that all major players get something they want.

Not easy. And I’m not positive it would work. But I’d definitely rather see the United States formulate a comprehensive strategy and try to execute it than continue with the ad hoc one-foot-in/one-foot-out approach of the last seven years.