The situation in Syria is complex for the West. There is two sides to this coin, from a Western perspective:
If the West backs the rebels and they win, then not only will Russia be totally cut off from the Middle East, but Iran and Hezbollah will have suffered a massive, irreversible blow. This may lead to a chain linked effect where Hezbollah and Iran also suffer their own insurrections and possibly cease to exist as a result of their own collapses. The West would achieve great geopolitical gain in this region if moderate rebels prevail and topple the regime. But, however, Sunni extremists could then set up shop and wreak havoc across the region with their massive supplies of money and weapons and recruits.
If the Assad regime ends up winning, then Iran and Hezbollah will be emboldened, and Russia will have guaranteed it's geopolitical stake in the Middle East. Assad will stay as an arms buyer of Russia, they get to keep their port in Tartus, and they get a victory against the West. The regime in Iran and Hezbollah combined with Assad will get a new boost of life as the "Axis Of Resistance" will consolidate it's existence, shore up their military power and perhaps prepare to strike Israel next. Iran would be in absolutely no mood to "negotiate" about it's nukes. This situation, if Assad wins, would be an absolute geopolitical failure for the West.
It is my view that we should arm rebels under the command of Salim Idriss, one of the few FSA battalions left. Syria is a great geopolitical battle arena with different sides trying to get a piece of the pie and tugging Syria around in all different directions for their own benefit. The western powers would be wise to make sure that this conflict ends up benefiting them in the long run.
Syrians should not have to settle for an Assad family dynasty, Alawite minority ruled 43 year police state dictatorship where the regime's thugs systematically destroy entire cities, massacre entire villages, use chemical weapons on the population, rape women, shell houses, and throw hundreds of thousands into torture dungeons just so a family dictatorship can continue to rule over an entire ancient land that the Assad's believe they own.
Bashar Al Assad never truly opposed Al Qaeda - until they turned their guns on him. I should remind everyone to know that his regime was a major facilitator for Al Qaeda in Iraq, allowing them to use Syrian territory to cross over into Iraq, conduct attacks and then run back into Syria. The Syrian Intelligence Services even occasionally provided them with weapons caches, including supplying them with IEDs and teaching them how to make IEDs as well.
And when it comes to the "terrorism" factor, I wonder why almost everyone I see condemning the "terrorists" in Syria were never around for the atrocities of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Mali, Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Chechnya. Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, all countries of which have suffered from Islamist terrorist attacks. Why all of a sudden is everyone coming out of their hole to condemn the few Al Qaeda fighters in Syria, when the reason they are there is because the West never came to the aid of slaughtered Syrians?
Give the moderate FSA factions proper equipment to fight the regime and the suicide bombings, car bombings, and Al Nusra style extremist attacks will stop. It is a simple fact of war that when certain factions are more powerful than others, that their style of combat will also prevail over others.
There is the FSA, then Islamist factions like Ahrar Al Sham, and then you get into the Al Qaeda style groups. We should arm the FSA moderates, isolate the Islamist factions and that in turn will sap Al Qaeda of the power it has gained in Syria over the years.
Read more:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/06/analysis_alleged_let.php#ixzz2Vxlz3Y2e
