The United States should have, and needs to continue to, intervene. Two birds with one stone here, Assad, and ISIS. I'll be a little bit more coherent once someone challenges my statement.
You debate like Russians fight wars... Anywho, you say intervene but there are many ways of going about intervention. What kind of intervention do you think is warranted and or helpful in Syria at present? Assad may not be God's gift unto the Earth, far as leaders go, but I've seen attempts of his to appeal to the West and try to find a reasonable compromise. Probably just to save his own skin long-term, but it shows good faith. Islamic State on the other hand seems like a cancer that'll continue to grow until it's cut out. Point is: killing/removing the current leader of a country has yet to be proven an effective model. All it has done thus far is cause various problems, including the destabilization of the countries it has happened in.
Military intervention. I agree that we can't just get rid of Assad, because then we leave a vacuum for ISIS and other radicals. I say we deal with ISIS first. How we go about dealing with them could branch off into a whole different discussion (which I am willing to do). Then we can figure out a suitable replacement for Assad and put him in place. As for the Kurds, I'm pretty uncertain as to what to do about them. I am not fond of the middle east in any sense of that phrase. Personally I'd be okayw ith just completely removing ourselves and letting them duke it out (which I am aware directly contradicts what I initially said) but I'm an all or nothing type guy. So either complete military intervention or none at all,
ISIS at this point is probably equal parts an idea and an organization. There's no guarantee you can wipe it out without someone else following their footsteps shortly. Dealing with all radicals is at best a fever dream too. As I've stated previously, I disagree with military intervention, and going all-in seems like an even worse idea. Without cooperation from both Assad/his regime and Russia, etc. it's a stillborn project. Unless you want to take a gamble on world war 3 not kicking off. Political/diplomatic intervention is the way to go for the time being, military can be considered as an option after ensuring that the conflict wont escalate further.
I think Assad, Putin, and the Kurds can all agree ISIS is a bad thing. That should be a given. So we use our military to combat ISIS and then we focus on Assad. Of course since Putin is there whats stopping them from engaging the US while we are there under the guise of fighting ISIS? Not a lot really, and I do see the problems but, removing ISIS is (hopefully) a mutual goal the US and Russia should share. Then I guess we could use diplomatic solutions for Assad, the more I think about it the more feasible that seems.
