Assuming you are correct on some oblique interest of the US to be there, I contend those interests are best served by helping Assad gain total control over his entire country.
Thereby eliminating any terrorist breeding ground.
I’m not convinced you’re wrong there.
I was never a big fan of the rebellion in Syra. It happened in the time frame of the Muslim Brotherhood fiasco circling the region. It seemed an odds on favorite to be more shenanigans from truly terrorist enterprises.
Libya is no better off today for the things that transpired there. I don’t think Syria or the region would be benefited by the rebellion there.
Stabilizing the region and supporting talks between the rebellion and Assad, to try to avoid further bloodshed would make sense IMO.
If Assad was agreeable to let bygones be bygones, and the rebellion would agree to live in peace there, it certainly seems to me to be a good thing.
Who in their right mind would think arming and funding our enemies in Iraq would be a swell idea. We were told we were arming “the good” al Qaeda in Syria. There’s no such thing. It was a whacked plan from the get-go IMO.
That is exactly what is happening. Assad cannot regain total control without the Kurds. The Kurds know what Assad is, but do not want Syria dismembered. They dream of shaping Syria into a Democracy (leftist). I'm not a subscriber to their ideology, but they have demonstrated they can make communities work. Arab, Kurd, Assyrian, Turkmen and get along. It has already been done in many places.