blue3 and DavidB, can you elaborate more?
I understand why you take this position, but at the same time...ISIS could completely destroy Syria as we knew it if Assad falls before them .
I think we need to cease removing him from power atm until we deal with ISIS. Russia is only targeting rebel groups threatening Assad, so we need to go in and get rid of ISIS ourselves while not funding any rebel groups.
I do understand that this, most likely, props up Assad for a bit, but ISIS is much more of a menace to the civilian population in Syria. After dealing w/ ISIS, we should work to stop Hezbollah from gaining any further strength (allies like Israel are keeping an eye on Hezbollah and with good reason).
After ISIS, and Hezbollah are dealt with...I think that is the only appropriate time to try and deal w/ Assad.
If ISIS could somehow be ended first (which would be nearly impossible), then Assad would be in a stronger position than ever and be impossible to remove without a 2003-style invasion.
By contrast, if we remove Assad first, then ISIS would be drawn out into the open and destroyed, they would become stretched too thin by overreaching throughout the area, they'd lose motivation, and it would be more likely for the rifts within it to cause it to fracture. And overall, if we want to get rid of both, getting rid of Assad first is the way to go.
Very good points, actually. My only issue is we'd need to have at least one major power getting involved ground-wise, if Assad is overthrown, to take out ISIS and the remnants of Assad's ilk/Hezbollah.
Who would do it? America? I don't think Obama would put in ground troops. Also, Russia would still be a problem.
Poll
