Thanks for your post but with all due respect you're grossly simplifying the issue here.
Let's start with Assad. You're making the general statement that the people of Syria want him ousted. I'll concede that the majority of Syrians don't hold a favourable view over him, even his own sect, but I also stand by the notion that most prefer him to the alternative available right now. You're using the sample size of a few of your Syrian mates to formulate a generalisation, but I can recall a lot of my own Syrian friends and acquaintances who would much rather him than the FSA/ISIS. All it testaments is how divided the nation is.
Ok - short of either one of us finding every single Syrian and asking them point blank who they prefer, neither one of us will be able to provide enough evidence for the other to believe. However, having said that, from my own understanding, research, interactions, and reading, the overwhelming majority hate him as much as I do. And I haven't advocated IS in his place.
For all of Assad's brutality, its still insane to compare him to ISIS. Yes him and his fathers body count may be higher, but that's hardly surprising since you're collectively factoring a family dictatorship stretching over 40 year timespan compared to the couple of years ISIS have been around. But during the Assad reign we've not had Christians being beheaded, churches being burned and an entire sect's women being used as sex slaves. Bashar is just another brutal middle eastern dictator, ISIS on the very hand represent the very worst in humanity.
Assad has been responsible for 400,000 deaths in 4 years. IS are on 20,000 in 2. The numbers are incomparable. Both are vile, and both should and will be vanquished, but I don't buy into this notion that IS are worse. They're scum, but their horrors have been for public consumption, and for shock value. I don't want to be misquoted here, so I'll say it again. IS are vile, and they needed to be routed out, but within the context of the Syrian war, there is only winner in terms of depravity, crimes, and inhumane actions, and that is Assad. I mean, I've seen some horrific videos that his goons and the likes of Shabiha have carried out, and they are on similar levels (if not worse) to IS. Again I ask, what ever metric you want to use in terms of who's worse, there is only one winner. Even if we were to extrapolate the amount killed, or peoples displaced etc. And it's made worse by the fact that Iran and Russia and Lebanese Hezbollah have been involved, as people think this is a legitimate pardon for Assad to do what he's done. That is so so wrong. Barrel bombs, napalm, chemical warfare, gas, you name it Assad has done it. He's tortured and killed to cling to power, and it annoys me that others don't understand that (and you as you're one of my fav. posters). My point is that for the Syrian people, the graver threat has always been Bashar. Considering that IS control desert/barren sparsely populated lands, and Bashar is holed up in the big densely populated cities, who is more likely accumulating a larger death toll?
You're also claiming that the solution to this issue lies in taking out Bashar first and foremost, and then dealing with ISIS like its an afterthought that will just fall into place. Well consider recent history - what happens when we take out a brutal ME dictator? It opens up a vacuum that is almost always occupied by extremists - see Iraq and Libya. Now in Syria this is even more precarious since the most organised and substantial opposition tot he Syrian government is...you guessed it - ISIS. Now consider the terrifying implications of what would happen if there were suddenly a huge power vacuum in Syria...
Well, let's look at the make up of the main opposition forces - the FSA are primarily made up of senior guys from the regime. As in, people that know the make up, infrastructure and civil life of Syria. If they were to end Assad, wouldn't they be best placed to handle Syria as opposed to some puppet put in place by the US? I'll tell you why this is different to Iraq and Libya, and
@Revan, this is for your benefit as well. I've always maintained the position that the FSA will be the best for the country, and for multiple reasons. Firstly, they are moderate, they have no grand designs to get rid on non Muslim presence in the lands, nor do they have any real desire to eradicate non Syrians. Their position has always been one of pluralism and reforms. If the West had armed them to begin with we might have seen an end to this bloody conflict by now. Secondly, as I mentioned, their make up and hierarchy is ex political/military personnel from the old regime. They know what will work and what won't work. They will be best placed to carry Syria forward. Thirdly, it would never be in their interest to allow IS the chance to proliferate and expand. The natural extension to their dominion on the land will be to repel/rout out IS. IS are primarily concerned with territorial control and the removal of non Sunnis, and foreign participants. The FSA rely on groups such as the YPG, the Free Alawites, Druze, etc. Why would they suddenly turn their backs on these other groups post Sunni? A lot of the inroads they made were hijacked by IS. Heck - even al Nusra have collaborated and found common ground with the FSA to battle the likes of IS. IS is the common enemy after Assad, and I have no doubt that if the opposition were to remove Assad once and for all, they would mobilise against IS after. And if they were aided by foreign countries, then so be it. Libya, on the other hand, never had a rebel faction as well organised as this. NATO didn't think far ahead either, and was more concerned portraying the big hero, imo. Iraq...well, tbh, I'm still not sure what the West's plan was save for going in there and fecking it up, oh yea it was oil, but there was no real plan or afterthought, and there was no real opposition body either. That was a cataclysmic mistake by the West and Bush ad Blair should be tried for war crimes (but I digress). The point is, outside forces going in to intervene create the vacuum. Syria don't need an outside opposition, as the FSA provide that for them. How can a vacuum fester and grow if the winners of the conflict are domiciled in the lands? You can't apply the same logic from Iraq & Libya to Syria, although I understand yours (and other's) trepidation.
