Oh good grief:
But regional analysts say the reality is more complex, and the question of whether or not Assad has truly benefited is far murkier.
Come on! Is this line of reasoning serious? Of course our aerial intervention against one of his strongest enemies has aided Assad!
You can say that Assad has not been able to exploit this help to exceed the other problems he has in winning the war, but that is a separate question.
Yes, our air effort is a positive for Assad. The fact that multiple negatives in other areas mean a net losing situation for Assad on the ground is a relief but not a defense of our policy.
And when you ponder that Assad probably sees our involvement as a means of a negotiated settlement that helps him survive, you add another aspect of our benefit to Assad.
Remember, Assad already got our help with that faux chemical weapons "disarmament" deal that Russia's Lavrov swindled from our very own Inspector Clouseau of Foggy Bottom (Kerry: Do you have a license for that underground facility? Assad: It is not my chemical weapons facility!) in order to keep us from intervening against Assad more than a year ago.
With our forces now bombing ISIL targets in Syria, just what might our president so evidently eager to "responsibly end" another war give to Assad to get that short-term boast in place?
Good God, people, of course our intervention so far is helping Assad. I'm hoping we actually get more French in our policy or that at least our help for Assad won't matter enough to save him.
