My Analysis on Syria

[b]Don't worry, there is a tl;dr at the bottom for those that do not wish to read this all and still comment with their thoughts and opinions. [u]I want to hear peoples opinions on this.[/u] [/b] Or rather, my analysis on the most recent piece of news coming out of Syria (besides the existential evidence pointing to torture by the Assad regime). Syria is something I've been following relatively closely the past year and I have analyses, hypotheses, and theories on a wide range of topics regarding the conflict; if need be, I can present those as well. Anyway, the newest information is this: [quote]The United States and Gulf countries have been secretly backing efforts by opposition rebels to destroy al-Qaeda's most extreme wing in Syria, diplomats and rebels involved in the plan have told The Telegraph. As Western leaders publicly push the Syrian regime and the opposition to the Geneva II peace conference that begins Wednesday Washington has also been quietly supporting moves by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to give weapons and cash to rebel groups to fight al-Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) in Syria.[/quote]Now, before you say it, this is completely different than our support to groups who are and have been fighting the Assad regime (and some elements of the opposition, especially in the north, have been cut off from our aid due to security reasons); rather, this support is going directly to those groups fighting one of the two al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria--the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham. In a Facebook conversation with my dear friend, Tom (MilitaryTheorist/Diplomat), I discussed how this is beneficial to our interest in six ways. This list is not exhaustive and many more reasons exist. What I will do is lay out the six ways and, like all good analyses should offer, I will also outline the ways in which this good be detrimental to our interests. You can decide what you think after that. The six ways: [quote]1. It reduces the levels of extremism emanating from ISIS and their territory within Syria. By funding and supplying these groups fighting ISIS, we can help make cities, villages, and large swathes of ground come back under relatively moderate opposition control. 2. By doing so, it is mitigating the effects ISIS has had on "hijacking" the opposition. If ISIS can be beaten back, this severely undermines Assad's claim that the opposition are "terrorists" and it undermines AQ's influence in Syria (although, they still have al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham, but ISIS was by far the most potent). 3. Also by doing so, this will help turn the opposition's attention back to where it needs to be: On Assad. ISIS going around instigating shit between rebel groups wasn't helping, nor was their implementation of Sharia in places like Raqqah and their fighting with Kurds. If these groups can beat back ISIS, the attention can then be shifted back to Assad. Going along with this, when the attention is shifted back, they will have plenty of funds and plenty of weapons to do so. 4. If effective, this means we wouldn't have to look to Assad as a partner in the fight against AQ in Syria. Being seen as a partner is what Assad wants, but if we can stop that reality from happening, we can make that first step in achieving our goals of a more democratic Syria. 5. This could help relations with Saudi and Qatar, who were distraught over us not launching air strikes back in August. This can show that: "Hey, we are assisting the rebels, we are doing something, and we see the rebels as viable friends". It may not help relations much with Saudi since the Iran deal, but it's a start in getting on the same page again in Syria. Lastly, 6: By supporting these more moderate elements and the aforementioned attention to Assad, they can become an applicable party to a transitional government, assuming these groups would be wiling to work together in a governmental setting. I may be getting ahead of myself, but we still need powerful groups to support, who are not radical and at least stand for the core of our ideals, to be an effective party for a new government. The article mentions that some of these groups fighting ISIS--and that we, Saudi and Qatar are funding and supplying--are aligned with the SMC. So, that's a start.[/quote] Like I said, a good analysis offers the negatives too. So down to business. 1. Even with large support to these organizations fighting ISIS, there is no guarantee that they will beat back ISIS and reverse their momentum. ISIS, or rather al-Qaeda in general, seems to be keen on keeping territory in the "sham" region; which includes both Iraq and Syria. A large counter-attack made by ISIS forces, in conjunction with allies, could be possible. 2. The opposition organizations fighting ISIS cannot successfully undermine ISIS's influence and gains. What we would see here is Assad continuing to justify killing his own civilians, all in the name of fighting "terrorism" (which, let's be honest, is what he wanted from the start). More importantly, al-Qaeda keeps large amounts of territories, oil, and influence in Syria. What we need to look at in this scenario is how they govern the cities they control. They already do a tremendous job of making people hate them in Raqqa and Deir az-Zour; moreover, their execution of a prominent leader in another rebel group is what started the infighting. So depending on how well they govern, this influence may or may not last long for ISIS (Zawahiri has allegedly been giving the Emir of ISIS the same treatment he gave Zarqawi--reprimands after reprimands). Like I said before, though, they still have Jabhat al-Nusra, the official Syrian al-Qaeda wing, and Ahrar ash-Sham. 3. This could have some negative effects in how regards to how long the attention is off of Assad. During this time, Assad could make some gains in Aleppo or Idlib. Even yet, if these groups can undermine ISIS and turn the attention back to Assad, what will their conditions be? Will they be ready to take the fight back to Assad? 4. This one is rather obvious. They fail; we look to Assad as a partner. 5. This too is rather obvious. This does nothing to improve relations with Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent, Qatar. 6. Assuming that these groups do beat back ISIS and Assad falls, there is still no guarantee that any one of these groups who conform to at least the core of our ideals, will be strong enough to win power. Which means that we will be left with a power-vacuum that will continue to entrench the region in conflict for the foreseeable future. No doubt that in this political instability, al-Qaeda would be able to regroup like they have done in the past and take advantage of the chaos. This would leave us with even more security implications, even more bloodshed, and even more chaos in the Middle East. [b]TL;DR[/b] The US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are arming those opposition groups who are currently fighting one of al-Qaeda's affiliates in Syria--the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham. This is a good thing because we need to fight back against al-Qaeda's gains, we need to turn the attention back on Assad, we need to strengthen those moderate opposition groups, and we need to make Assad not rely on using the justification of fighting "terrorism" to kill his own people. Furthermore, this can also give us a good chance to see if we can make a good "friend" and ally out of one of these groups for a post-Assad government.