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

1. In response to the questions "Is Pro proposing unilateral action? " and "Wouldn't switching sides weaken our present alliances? " I believe that America's intervention in Syria is more unilateral when it comes to fighting Assad. The CIA provided arms to Syrian rebels without consulting the UN or other western allies. At present there are no coalitions against Assad's regime. There is only an American-led coalition against ISIS/ISIL. This coalition do not include Russia or Assad. I believe that the coalition should at least formally include Russia which would create more coordinated air strikes against ISIS. The fact that the UN voted to condemn Assad does not warrant action against his government. The UN would never agree to directly attack Syria even without Russia's veto. When it comes to Syria as it stands, no one is our true ally. In a hacked Hillary email, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are accused of funding ISIS. Her idea of arming and coordinating with the Kurds already angers all other parties in the region including our "ally" Turkey. The US wants to do too many things at the same time which complicates our alliances. 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. 3. In response to "Would Assad even accept American support? " Assad has already called President-elect Donald Trump a "natural ally" in the fight against terrorism. With the change of administration, Assad would accept talks with Trump. 4. In response to "Can Pro prove that discontinuing aid to the Rebels and/or offering aid to Assad would result in easy victory? " No, I can't prove or guarantee that changing stances would result in a quick victory. 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. If the two are at odds, there would never be a quick victory and in this case, the US under Obama's leadership has no path to true victory. 5. In response to "Doesn't Assad have the most difficult military objectives of any faction? " Assad has the easiest military and political objective of any faction to ensure peace. Splitting the country up would satisfy some factions but would not peaceful for long. The creation of Kurdistan would lead to a series of wars against Iraq and Turkey. Assad by himself would have a hard time fighting all other factions but with Russian support and if the US stops funding and helping the rebels or even gets support of the US, his ability of regaining control over his own country are certain. 6. In response to "How does Pro define peace and stability in Syria? " Yes, 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 led to the election of Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi. After protests, he was overthrown by a coup d'etat led by Abdel el-Sisi which led to a deadly military crackdown of the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya after the death of Muammar Gaddafi and a few years of peace is now going through another civil war. The main factions there is between the democratically elected Council of Deputies, the Internationally recognized Libyan government, the Islamic General National Congress, and ISIL. Another 4 faction war that was a direct result of US led NATO intervention and its inability to ensure peace after the old government was destroyed. 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. I'd argue that there is always a better chance of stability (i. e. not another civil war) with the current authoritarian secular government under Assad than a new weak western controlled government or a democratically elected radicalized Islamist government. 7. In response to "What evidence can Pro offer to ensure that the number of refugees seeking asylum would be reduced? " 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. Once Assad regains control, there would be little motivation for another mass rebellion and therefore little chance of civil war. If Assad loses power, there would be another civil war from a disjointed new government just like in Libya. 8. In response to "What evidence can Pro offer to show that the threat of terrorism would be reduced? " Al-Qaeda, which is mostly dead now, has only one successful attack on western countries, that is 9/11 attacks. As horrible as they were, there hasn't been a single attack on US soil that was Al-Qaeda inspired or where Al-Qaeda was directly involved in from 9/11 2001 to bin Laden's death in 2011. Since 2011 there have been multiple Islamist inspired terrorist attacks on US soil including the Boston Marathon bombing, San Benardino Attack, the Orlando nightclub shooting, the New York/New Jersey bombings,and the Minnesota mall attack. ISIS didn't use their limited resources to communicate and coordinate most of these attacks. I don't necessarily say that these attacks are a direct result of ISIS. I would like to suggest that the US intervention in the Middle East after the Arab Spring such as trying to topple the governments of Egypt, Libya, and Syria has led to more conflict and wars in the region then ever before. The use of drone strikes also hasn't helped promote US's moral authority. Joining Russia and Assad to attempt to destroy ISIS quickly and leaving the middle east to its own devices would not guarantee that there would be no more home grown terrorist attacks on US soil. But there would probably never be a terrorist on US soil that cited the US's lack of middle eastern intervention as his reason for an attack. ISIS should be destroyed for Europe's sake. The attacks on Niece, Paris, and Brussels are a direct result of Syrian refugees pouring into Europe and having an opportunity to causing terrorism. Destroying ISIS would hopefully decrease the platform of Islamic extremism. It doesn't take much training to grab a truck and run through a crowd. It doesn't take more than some searching on the internet and a trip to a hardware store to create a homemade bomb. The only resources that a real terrorist needs on foreign soil is the internet, some money, and the willingness to sacrifice one's self. Having a potential terrorist believing that there would be no reason for an attack would prevent the attack altogether. Your statement that "Syria a state sponsor of terrorism" is wrong. Assad's secular government wasn't even remotely responsible for any terrorist attack. The US is better off getting friendly with Assad rather than openly denouncing him. Either way Assad is most likely going to win with Russian support with or without the US. Having Assad hate us after the war wouldn't mean terrorist attacks but it would just be another government that we're not friendly with in the middle east. I'd also argue that Israel is safer if Syria is under Assad's regime than under ISIS or some other random rebel regime. I look forward to con's response to these statements in Round 2.