After Syrian ISIS territory is occupied by the US, what should be done with that territory? Let Assad keep it? Or should Assad be overthrown as well?
Yes, this seems to be glossed over when people talk about sending in ground forces. Ground forces on behalf of whom? Assad? Anti-Assad rebels? Assad considers his government the sole legitimate government of Syria. So if the US or the US + allies send in troops to take territory, and they're not aiming to hand that territory over to Assad, then aren't they at war with Assad?
Similar issues re: setting up a "no fly zone". IS isn't bombing people from the air, so I'm not sure what good a no fly zone does against IS. It can be used to protect people from Assad's air power, but that in turn could help IS.
I am at a loss to understand what precisely people are proposing here, if they even know themselves. But I'm also a bit confused about Obama's current policy. We seem to be bombing IS, but not everywhere. Within Syria, the air strikes preference targets that threaten Kurdish and other "friendly" ground forces. I guess the thinking is that we don't want to attack IS in a way that enables Assad to "win the war" because "Assad must go". But maybe Paris will change the calculus, and the coalition will now target IS everywhere, even if it means giving Assad a huge advantage in the civil war?
Poll
