I too would have voted no.
Attack ISIS? YES. Attack ISIS inside Syria? Yes. Continue to intervene between Assad and what is essentially a Sunni Islamist putsch against him? No.
What we need between Assad and the putsch against him is a military stalemate, a convincing stalemate that is so convincing that both Assad and the FSA understand that is all they can get. Then we can get a truce and then we can get political talks between them.
If we up the support to the “Syrian opposition” it is certain that (a) Iran, Russia & Hezbolla will up their support to Assad, and (b) Lebanon will be engulfed with spillover from Syria between Sunni & Shia, and (c) in addition to becoming a part of the internal struggle in Syria, Lebanon will become an additional venue for ISIS as well. NONE of those things are in the U.S. interest.
BUT, if we limit our actions inside Syria to only attacking ISIS, and that’s all we are doing, then we become less on one side or the other between Assad and the “Syrian opposition” and we will gain some leverage in getting them to come to a truce. That truce and what we do alone against ISIS only in Syria is what is in the U.S. best interest.
“Attack ISIS? YES. Attack ISIS inside Syria? Yes. Continue to intervene between Assad and what is essentially a Sunni Islamist putsch against him? No.”
I agree with that.