Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Another strategic failure by the West.

Back when this started to come to the boil the 'smart guys' had all the smart ideas... and look where that lead to.
I suspect this assessment is nonsense because it assumes if we provided more support to the so called moderates early in the conflict they would have triumphed and a peaceful democracy would have bloomed over Syria. Hell if you carry that myth a little further they even would have joined NATO along side Turkey in another 10 years or so.

This assessment in my view casually dismisses several factors. First, the moderates were always a majority and the opposition forces we now (Iran, Hezbollah, AQ, etc.) would still be there. At best more support to the moderate faction would have resulted in the removal of Assad, but it is highly unlikely they would be able to retain power. Iran and Hezbollah consider Syria critical to your interests, so it unreasonable to assume they wouldn't be a force to deal with even if provided support to the moderates. It is highly unlikely the moderates could defeat them. The AQ and AQ linked extremists with a relatively secure base of operations next door in Iraq would be a player regardless of whether we provided support or not. If you look at the history a rather large extremist element in Syria's population has been suppressed for decades by Assad and his father, and they're not pushing for democracy or an inclusive society. Christians, Alawites, some Kurds and other minorities would still be in considerable danger.

We clearly made mistakes in Syria by promising aid and support that never came. We gave the moderates a sense of false hope which was unethical in my opinion. However, to assume we could have changed the course of history by more than a few months I suspect is hubris.