Thank goodness we didn't "militarize" the Syrian crisis by supplying non-jihadi resistance with arms!
US reluctance to provide weapons and cash to Syrian rebels is increasing the appeal of joining with well-funded and well-armed jihadists, many of them from abroad.
Funny how that works, huh? People who want to resist Assad actually join up with the lads with money and weapons to resist:
Another result, often voiced in this embattled city, is that even though the US shares rebel aims, its limited support for the fight itself has ignited widespread anger toward Washington – and even prompted speculation that the US wants the Syrian regime to win.
"Before the revolution, there were no Al Qaeda here," says Abu Mohammed, the doctor. "When this regime makes these crimes, they come, and come to help.
"The US says their [pro-democracy line only]; Al Qaeda says, 'We will help.' So what do we do, smile to the US and kick out Al Qaeda?" he adds. "The longer [the war] takes, the more of them there will be."
It's almost like those people lack the ability to appreciate the nuance of our balanced approach, or something.
Huh. The jihadis didn't worry that most Syrians aren't interested in Islamism as a replacement for Assad. So the jihadis simply fight.
We don't want to "militarize" the conflict--as if Assad's bombardment of civilians isn't a militarized response to dissent--even though the opposition wants to fight Assad.
So more people appreciate the jihadis who fight Assad and resent America for not even sending arms to help them fight Assad.
We're worried that the fall of Assad could lead to something worse? No doubt, that is something to worry about. And our policy is increasing the odds that something worse will happen.
