Trump’s advisors need to ask now, in retrospect, was there some middle ground between helping to arm the “Syrian opposition” - as it WAS dominated by Islamists - and letting Russia and Iran so boldly arm Assad; and what would that middle ground have been.
Could we have, somehow succeeded in not letting Russia and Iran move into and arm Syria so much (different “red lines”), and also NOT have emboldened the “Syria opposition”, and then over time, with both sides less able to pursue war, brought some sort of political and military stalemate sooner?
It’s only a question and I have no answers, except this.
Assad is HORRIBLE. So are Putin and the Mullahs of Tehran.
What if we had supported Assad? Could he have been our “bastard” that over time we could dump?
#2 Could we have, somehow succeeded in not letting Russia and Iran move into and arm Syria so much (different red lines), and also NOT have emboldened the Syria opposition, and then over time, with both sides less able to pursue war, brought some sort of political and military stalemate sooner? - not from January 2017. The time to have done this would have been in 2011 or 2012, but the US, UK and France were suckered by the Saudis to try and replace Assad with jihadis. The Syrians don't trust us, with reason. The right thing to have done in 2012 was keep Turkey, Saudia on a leash and tell Assad that he could deal with the jihadis and keep western Syria as long as he signs a non-aggression pact with the Israelis (also to his benefit as he then doesn't need to commit troops in the south)
#3 Assad is HORRIBLE. So are Putin and the Mullahs of Tehran. - they are nowhere as horrible as the Saudis or pakis. Erdogan is as horrible.
#4 What if we had supported Assad? Could he have been our bastard that over time we could dump? then the USA would create more problems. The right attitude was to stay out and not overtly support anyone. Sponsoring jihadi groups as McCain wanted to do was insane