The funding and training by other Western nations was entirely contingent on US support. The US did the delivery, and operated the physical bases that allowed for training.

As for foreign support, except for US-led support, all of it was to support Assad.

Whats more, even at the very beginning the US limited Russia's support of Assad by threat of military intervention.

As for the rest, if you think it is tenable for a fractured force of over twenty different factions without an access to weapons, training or funding to persist more than a few months against a modern army, you are simply wrong. Insurgency would have been possible, but not holding territory.

In any case, the non-jihadist non-Kurdish independent (which were amenable to limited autonomy since the beginning) forces basically dissipated within a year with the fall of the Free Syrian Army in 2012. Your theory that the revolt would have been protracted and last for years without international support is completely absurd, because it was almost completely destroyed, leaving only the YPG and the Jihadists, within a year until US support returned.

Indeed, the successor of the FSA, the SMC, was explicitly backed by the US-led coalition from its very founding.

I'm not belittling the actions or decisions of local groups in anyway. I speak Arabic myself, and have friends that lived in Syria at the time. The movement was not sustainable at all, and was much, much, much less bloody until the Western weapons fell into the hands of Jihadists.

I never asked the US to remain neutral in a conflict against terrorism. If they wish to do so, they could have joined it with the accord of the Syrian Government instead of waging war against it and indirectly (and directly) supplying the terrorists.

I'm blaming the US squarely because she, and her allies which operated through the US, are the only source of armament for the opposition and the Jihadists, and knew very well that Democracy was completely impossible in Syria at the time since the very beginning, but instead saw an opportunity to pursue geopolitical interests at the cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet again.

Your attempt to deflect the blame by accusing entities that never facilitated the Civil War at all of "doing it too", denying the clear pattern of US involvement in the rebel and jihadi elements of the Civil War is frankly disgusting.

From 400 000 to 600 000 people died in a Civil War that, even at the very beginning, never even had a majority amongst the rebels of support for a secular democracy, and that was prolonged 7 years past the functional collapse of the rebels - which were then swiftly reorganized under the watchful eye of the US - is denial of a horrible atrocity done for literally no possible benefit - which was clear from the very beginning to anyone that made even a cursory attempt at an independent reading of the situation.

And by the way, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey were solidly allied with the US in military matters in the large majority of the conflict. Qatar never actually put boots on the ground, by the way.

The Turkish invasion itself was only ever possible because Kurdish control over NES allowed Turkey to invoke the Asana accords signed by Turkey and Syria that allowed them to invade. Note that I wholeheartedly support the Kurdish cause and identify very strongly with their politics, but I cannot let that influence my analysis here. The Kurdish forces whose presence made the Turkish invasion possible are only there because of US boots on the ground that are intended as tripwire forces, which prevent Russian and Syrian forces of taking control of that territory - either peacefully in exchange for limited autonomy, or through force, the first option being significantly more likely due to Russian pressure to allow this.

No matter where you analyze the cause of the ridiculous prolongement of the war, you almost invariably find that the US is a blocker in the process of removing them.

I'm not trying to defend the Syrian Government either. I deeply dislike them. But there was, realistically, absolutely no way for a stable alternative to exist at the time of the revolution. Popular support for a preferable government was never in the absolute majority, and the inevitable conclusion of the Civil War was either a victory by Assad or something even worse - in both cases at an incredibly high cost.

This was explained and predicted to me by my father and Syrian friends all the way back in 2011, and while I did not agree at the time, in retrospect its clear that this was correct and I'm convinced the US knew as much too.