The U.S. should side with Assad and Russia instead of rebels in the Syrian Civil War.

Thanks, Pro- Counterarguments: 1 & 2 Pro argues for a unilateral switching of sides, effectively pitting our support against the diplomatic & military support of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France, & the UK. Pro argues that our covert intervention in 2012 was essentially unilateral, that we have no formal coalition against Assad, and that our Allies' interest are already out of sync in the region. The fact is we can't know how much consultation was done prior to CIA intervention because consulting about covert activities is done in secret. I think we can be confident that major players were consulted in secret and approved to the extent that CIA intervention aligned with allied interests. Yes, we have no formal alliance. Yes, Turkey is opposed to Kurdish expansion, but an about face would mean placing our military aid in direct opposition to our friends military aid. How does it benefit US foreign policy to endanger long term alliances in favor of a short term alliance with traditional antagonists? The U.K. Is already begging the US to think twice about such a foolhardy flip-flop. [1] Consider further that the President-elect has already developed a reputation as an instrument of Russia, "Putin's Puppet" as the Democratic challenger put it during the debates. A sudden re-alignment away from traditional allies towards the current incarnation of Russia authoritarian past would inevitably be portrayed by our allies as confirmation of the new President's weakness: a sidekick, a sycophant, a pet. Pro states, "Creating Kurdistan, toppling Assad, and destroying ISIS are all in Obama's foreign policy and no other government in the region shares the same view." This is a significant overstatement. All nations in the region oppose ISIS. Israel supports Kurdistan. Saudi Arabia and even Turkey maintain embassies in Iraqi Kurdistan but oppose expansion in Syria. Sunni states & Turkey want Assad out. Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, & Israel are agnostic: they wouldn't mind Assad's fall to varying degrees but fear a power vacuum. 3. Assad said that "if " if " he fights the terrorists, it is clear that we will be a natural ally, together with the Russians, Iranians and many other countries who want to defeat the terrorists." [2] Let's remember that when Assad speaks of terrorists, Israel is foremost in his mind: "There's no contradiction between Israel and any organization like al-Nusra or ISIS or any Al-Qaida-linked organization," said Assad of Israel and rebel groups fighting his regime in Syria.""Anyone, any terrorist who holds a machine gun and started killing and destroying in Syria was supported by Israel, either indirectly through the logistical support on the frontier, or sometimes by direct intervention by Israel against Syria in different areas in Syria." [3] Assad may look at anti-Semitic history of some the President-elect's appointments and hope for to divide America from Israel but unless Trump is prepared to reject Israel, Assad's affection ought to quickly fade. 4. Pro said, "But i can guarantee a victory. If the two greatest military powers in the world work together against one common relatively small enemy, victory is always certain." Famous last words. Neither power is willing to commit ground troops and overwhelming force is no sinecure: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, the Intifadas, etc. Pro:"the US under Obama's leadership has no path to true victory." Because Obama has learned the history lesson that eludes Pro: The quest for victory is the trap. "There"s no ultimate military victory to be won, we"re going to have to pursue the hard work of the diplomacy that aims to stop the violence and deliver aid to those in need," Obama told the United Nations in Sept. [4] 5. Pro: "Splitting the country up would satisfy some factions but would not peaceful for long. " Probably not. Pro: "The creation of Kurdistan would lead to a series of wars against Iraq and Turkey." Perhaps, perhaps not. Turkey still wants in to the EU and the Kurds have managed to preserve their autonomy in Iraq for 20 years. But the prospect of the US helping a dictator to subjugate the most egalitarian population in the Islamic Middle East would be hard for even the staunchest real-politicker to stomach. 6. Pro: "a true dictatorship would emerge following the end of the war. There will be censorship and civil rights would be infringed. But that happens after every civil war. Egypt did it after the Arab Spring...Libya after the death of Muammar Gaddafi" But we let those dictators fall & maintained a disengaged interest. Would Pro have had US forces fighting to uphold Gaddafi? To what benefit? Pro: "The US would be partly responsible for the crackdown of anti-Assad dissidents, but as with all of the horrible things that the US is responsible for, it won't reach the cover of a newspaper." US papers, perhaps. But on the BBC & Al-Jazeera, the US's reputation would be excoriated. 7. Pro: "There are two types of refugees. refugees seeking political asylum and refugees fleeing war. If Assad remained in power their would be an increase in refugees seeking political asylum. Since the anti-Assad forces are too diverse and weak individually, these refugees would not be able to gain asylum and would have to live with their choice in rebelling against the government. The refugees fleeing from war would be reduced if there is a lack of war." Pro seems to agree that there might be a short term increase in refugees. I suspect the long term effects are difficult to know and heavily depend on the viability of a post-war Syria. Pro seems confident that Assad can pacify the population and rebuild the country to sustain present population: I see no cause for such optimism. 8 Pro: "Al-Qaeda, which is mostly dead now, has only one successful attack on western countries, that is 9/11 attacks. " False, but also irrelevant. Al-Qaeda attacks have successfully targeted Westerners on many occasions before and since 9/11. The Madrid Train Bombings in 2004 killed 190 Europeans, for example. [5] But irrelevant because Pro seems to not recognize that ISIS is Al-Qaeda- its origins and leadership have their birth in Al-Qaeda in Iraq, inspired by Bin Laden's group which had its origins in US military support for the Afghani Mujahideen. [6]. These and many other radical groups throughout the Middle East are rooted in the extreme modern Salafist and Wahhabist movement dating back 150 years. The point is that ISIS ideology and tactics are not unique or isolated to the Syrian conflict, but the advantage the US has against ISIS is that it attracts like-minded extremists from many points of origin. ISIS can and should be exterminated but the origins of anti-Western terrorism will never be defeated on a battlefield. It would be mistake to suppose that the end of ISIS represents increased security in the West. Particularly if the US increases its complicity and re-aligns with a Sufi regime like Assad's. I'll address Syria as a terrorist state & hopefully look at oil interests in the final round. I hope Pro will conclude by specifically addressing how the US stands to benefit from an ascendant Assad. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] https://www.google.com... [3] http://www.ibtimes.com... [4] http://aranews.net... [5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...