[Goose]

All of these guys are better than Assad.

IMO it is far too early to conclude that. It also probably depends on "better" for who? Better for the US, better for Russia, better for the Syrian people as a whole, better for the Kurds etc. It is also quite possible that the various rebel groups cannot form a government at all and the fighting continues, with the Assad group led by some opportunistic Bathist.

It might be wise for the US to more forcefully support the rebels with air strikes against certain Assadist targets. It looks like the rebels will win, wouldn't hurt to have some influence there. But reticence to more deeply involve ourselves in a middle east conflict is understandable given our history.

I will believe the rebels are going to win when and only when I hear "real" reports of the Russians evacuating Tartus. There were reports of ships leaving that port that were interpreted as a Russian evacuation. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/202...tus-syria/ We now know those ships participated in a major Russian naval exercise in the eastern Mediterranean sea. Russia somewhat regularly rotates ships from their home bases in the Baltic Fleet and the Northern Fleet. This is necessary because the Turks are enforcing the Montreux Convention and they can't use Novorossiysk. If Russia doesn't return these ships to Tartus or replace them with others, that means something. Until then, it isn't significant.

We have seen this movie before. Assad has been in serious trouble several times in this civil war. Russia has been able to save his skin, and may be able to do so again despite the problems it has elsewhere. It is also pretty probable that if the rebels close in on victory they start fighting each other. I am pretty sure the US wants no part of this civil war. I am sure we are talking to all sides. Realistically, helping any one of them won't buy any "goodwill". The Kurds know from hard experience that we will drop them like a hot potato when it suits us. All the parties involved have see that. They behave the same way themselves. "Nations do not have friends, only interests". If we want to overthrow Assad, we could do it. That has been true essentially forever. Obviously we don't, or we would have.

One big reason we haven't become involved in the Syrian civil wars is that the situation is just too volatile. Iraq has a serious interest in how and by whom Syria is governed. So does Turkey. So does Iran. So does Israel. It is unclear that the US has a real "vision" of what should happen. All of the other players listed above definitely have a vision of what must NOT happen, and they are all different. Iran at least has a vision of their preferred outcome as well. Given that we don't know what we want and that even if we did we would end up in direct conflict with several of the players, we are staying as far away as we can. IMO that is a good plan. Of course, if things get "bad enough" in Syria, we too may have a vision of what must NOT happen. Then, things may change.

[Goose]

All of these guys are better than Assad.

IMO it is far too early to conclude that. It also probably depends on "better" for who? Better for the US, better for Russia, better for the Syrian people as a whole, better for the Kurds etc. It is also quite possible that the various rebel groups cannot form a government at all and the fighting continues, with the Assad group led by some opportunistic Bathist.

It might be wise for the US to more forcefully support the rebels with air strikes against certain Assadist targets. It looks like the rebels will win, wouldn't hurt to have some influence there. But reticence to more deeply involve ourselves in a middle east conflict is understandable given our history.

I will believe the rebels are going to win when and only when I hear "real" reports of the Russians evacuating Tartus. There were reports of ships leaving that port that were interpreted as a Russian evacuation. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/202...tus-syria/ We now know those ships participated in a major Russian naval exercise in the eastern Mediterranean sea. Russia somewhat regularly rotates ships from their home bases in the Baltic Fleet and the Northern Fleet. This is necessary because the Turks are enforcing the Montreux Convention and they can't use Novorossiysk. If Russia doesn't return these ships to Tartus or replace them with others, that means something. Until then, it isn't significant.

We have seen this movie before. Assad has been in serious trouble several times in this civil war. Russia has been able to save his skin, and may be able to do so again despite the problems it has elsewhere. It is also pretty probable that if the rebels close in on victory they start fighting each other. I am pretty sure the US wants no part of this civil war. I am sure we are talking to all sides. Realistically, helping any one of them won't buy any "goodwill". The Kurds know from hard experience that we will drop them like a hot potato when it suits us. All the parties involved have see that. They behave the same way themselves. "Nations do not have friends, only interests". If we want to overthrow Assad, we could do it. That has been true essentially forever. Obviously we don't, or we would have.

One big reason we haven't become involved in the Syrian civil wars is that the situation is just too volatile. Iraq has a serious interest in how and by whom Syria is governed. So does Turkey. So does Iran. So does Israel. It is unclear that the US has a real "vision" of what should happen. All of the other players listed above definitely have a vision of what must NOT happen, and they are all different. Iran at least has a vision of their preferred outcome as well. Given that we don't know what we want and that even if we did we would end up in direct conflict with several of the players, we are staying as far away as we can. IMO that is a good plan. Of course, if things get "bad enough" in Syria, we too may have a vision of what must NOT happen. Then, things may change.