Oh sure, technically it is a question of "when" since Assad will age and die of natural causes if nothing else. So he will leave. But obviously that isn't what the Obama administration means when it says that.
I worry that the mantra of "not if but when" is simply an excuse to do nothing. I mean, if the question is "if" you might have to actually do something for the Syrian people that we purportedly have a responsibility to protect from their own government (remember Libya?).
Assad isn't rolling over and his forces are still pounding the rebels and killing civilians. Some of the army's Sunni soldiers have defected, but after a year the security forces are still holding together. Support from Iran, Russia, and China has been enough to keep them going. And Assad is getting away from using helicopter gunships to fight the enemy.
And a year into the uprising, Assad's supporters are rallying:
Thousands poured into the streets of the Syrian capital Thursday in a show of support for the regime as soldiers tightened their siege in opposition areas on the one-year anniversary of the country's uprising.
We should funnel arms to the rebels. They want to fight against an enemy of ours. Why on Earth wouldn't we want to topple someone who spent years killing Americans and Iraqis by funneling jihadis into Iraq? Are we really worried that they might get mad and not talk to us? I mean, the Obama administration got over Assad killing American troops, and a year ago even sent an ambassador to Damascus (good timing, eh?).
Assad certainly believes the question of his departure is "if" (or that "when" is in his old age when he passes the baton to a picked successor). So he is fighting hard to answer the right question.
We don't need to intervene militarily. But sending arms to fight Assad seems like a no-brainer.
