I'm not necessarily advocating this, but if the U.S. wants to seriously attack ISIS, the best way to do it would be to team up with Assad. Maybe the price of a U.S.-Syrian alliance could be some kind of amnesty for the Free Syrian Army. Only through dealing with Assad would the U.S. get permission to attack ISIS in Syria. Which means that if attacking ISIS is the top priority, that would have to trump all the reasons that Obama does not want to cooperate with Assad.
To be clear, I am not advocating that strategy. I don't think that going after ISIS should be the U.S.'s top priority. And even with promises of an amnesty, the strategy is going to seriously screw over the Syrian rebels who are not allied with ISIS--that is, the side in the Syrian civil war that the U.S. has favored for the past 3 years--not to mention the ordinary people who have thrown their support behind the rebels in places like Aleppo and Homs.
It's just that there seem to be a lot of American politicians who do think that "destroying ISIS" should be priority #1. But none of them are facing the reality that the best way to do that would be to buddy up with Assad.
To be clear, I am not advocating that strategy. I don't think that going after ISIS should be the U.S.'s top priority. And even with promises of an amnesty, the strategy is going to seriously screw over the Syrian rebels who are not allied with ISIS--that is, the side in the Syrian civil war that the U.S. has favored for the past 3 years--not to mention the ordinary people who have thrown their support behind the rebels in places like Aleppo and Homs.
It's just that there seem to be a lot of American politicians who do think that "destroying ISIS" should be priority #1. But none of them are facing the reality that the best way to do that would be to buddy up with Assad.
