going into Syria against Assad. ( I referred to Assad as unelected--an inexcusable use of hyperbole to show my general opinion of some countries' manner of acquiring leaders--not that I think he's such a legitimate guy.)
So what do I think now that President Obama is suggesting going into possible operations in Syria to degrade and eventually destroy ISIL, who, if you haven't noticed, I have exactly no earthly use for?
Well, it's complicated. Because the dynamic hasn't changed, has it? We still have the Assad regime on one hand, which Obama himself admits having no sympathy with. There's ISIL, who only a bloody incompetent like Sen. McCain could temporarily love (I kid--only partisans out there in the world we created might think that.) There's the Free Syria Army, who are distinctively not human rights angels. Basically, there aren't any good guys, except for the millions of people who are likely to be displaced, as a million or so others have been already displaced, by this kind of effort.
Because these are the sort of unintended consequences we're seeing already in Iraq. I think it's very reasonable to ask what is to be done in the event that we are successful in routing out ISIL--because that has to be the extent of our business. We are not responsible to build any other nation besides our own. The idea of setting up a temporary regency is inviting trouble and graft. Leaving a power vacuum seems to invite strongmen and militants to become the stewards of Syria's fate.
I'm just saying.