I think what people misunderstand about the FSA is that it's more of a conglomerate than an actual cohesive movement, similar to the freedom fighters that fought against the Soviet Union during the 80s. Now, what everyone is getting up in arms about is the fact that when we did this before, many members ended up joining the Taliban and A.Q., which is what we're worried about now. However, Afghanistan is not entirely applicable to Syria, in my opinion. Different enemy, different war. The reality is that as I said before, there exists a wide variety of groups and movements within the FSA that lean either indifferent towards the US or are secular. Sure, they may be the minority, but they exist nonetheless. What the United States needs to do is fund these groups so that they WON'T go to A.Q. Remember, a lot of FSA factions have publicly stated that they would only go to extremist groups if they had to, but they'd prefer to deal with the West. In Syria, we're dealing with a sizable westernnally oriented youth bulge, which don't want to see their country fall into the hands of extremists, or worse, collapse into a state of prolonged civil war, like Afghanistan did following the power void left by the D.R.A.'s death. As Baph said, there also exists the option for the United States to just let the Syrians deal with this themselves. Many people argue that sizable intervention would tip the sectarian pot over, creating an even bloodier and unstable Middle East. Certainly, this is a valid point. However, I think it's a point that the U.S. shouldn't base its policies on. Wether we like it or not, Syria will continue to devolve. What we need to do is create or at least attempt to create an environment that will not harbor feelings of anti-western animosity, at least not to the extent to which it manifests itself to militantism.