I don't know how you go from saying Assad is the more rational one then make the rest of it about convincing Assad being worse than ISIS. There's no proof for who conducted the chemical bombings as of yet, just theories. Why would Assad who was already facing international opposition commit a political suicide and risk inviting US/Nato in the wake of what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam? It makes no sense. In the months prior to the Ghouta attack, Al Nusra captured a chemical plant in Aleppo, was later found holding chemical weapons as well. You're giving Assad too much credit if you think only he would have the audacity to use chemical weapons while in possession of them. Also, where are you getting the numbers for 300,000 killed? UN puts the total at 220,000. I'd like to see a source on the distribution of the scores killed that is not Syrian Obervatory/Network For Human Rights as they're transparently biased.
Massacring Sunni muslims are fair points, but I'm not sure we can credit Assad entirely for rise in their extremism considering ISIS was born in Iraq and spread when U.S. smashed the government to bits. The majority of Sunny fighters not with ISIS are bankrolled by foreign powers. Assad has faced opposition from or directly funded by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi, Jordan, Israel, U.S., U.K., France, Al Qaeda, ISIS before Iran and Russia saved him. How is this a civil war? And how's supporting "rebels" once allied with Al Qaeda or eventually joining ISIS for being morally repugnant?
1. Rational =/= Morally superior. Bashar's regime is responsible for most deaths in Syria, and has indulged in torture and oppression that wouldn't shame ISIS.
2. There is really no debate about what happened with the chemical bombings. I've had many debates about this with posters on this forum at the time, so it's impossible for me to repeat the same points again. Western intelligence has rock-solid evidence that it was the regime, and even Russia tacitly acknowledged it when it pressured Assad to surrender all of his chemical arsenal. Aside from the extensive evidence gathered from eye witnesses, international organizations and intelligence, there is also the fact that the conspiracy theory just doesn't make any sense. If the rebels somehow got their hands on chemical weapons, a delivery mechanism and the necessary expertise to operate this, why would they proceed to use it on an elaborate, risky and ultimately pointless false flag attack? If the rebels could stage a chemical attack on Damascus, how about gassing the Presidential Palace and ending it right there?
3. The rebels are comprised of many different groups, the most dominant of which are Islamist groups that are obviously cruel and barbaric. But that has no bearing on the fact that the Assad regime has zero legitimacy to continue ruling Syria.
I dont think its practical at all to compare Bashar al Assad with Mubarak, because the Christian and Alawite minorities in Syria necessitated an entirely different, more gradual transition of power that the (largely Sunni) protesters simply were not prepared to accept. The speed of Mubarak's exit gave protesters in other countries an unrealistic template of reform and they wanted nothing short of total capitulation from Bashar and his gang.
Feeling cornered, Bashar made the mistake of empowering bloodthirsty generals he could neither control nor reign in and the rest is the shocking history of state sponsored torture and massacre and radicalized Islamist groups supported by the GCC.
Bashar's culpability doesn't start at the protests, it starts at the decade before that when he could have started to modernize and liberalize his country and didn't. Syria is a mafia state - it was literally ruled by decades by a family of criminals and their cronies. It doesn't take a genius to understand that this is not a sustainable model. I don't know if Assad is just weak and couldn't resist the survival instincts of people in his regime, or if he's just a power hungry asshole, but in either case he has the most responsibility for the dire situation in his country.
What do you think the solution is?
Honestly with Russia in the picture I don't know how feasible this is at the moment, but I have read proposals that included the following elements:
1. Create an international coalition to invade Syria from the north.
2. Establish a Free Syrian humanitarian zone along the entire border with Turkey. This should reduce the flow of people, funds and ammunition to and from ISIS controlled territory. Humanitarian efforts in this region should be led by international NGOs and aid groups.
3. Establish a No Flight Zone above the humanitarian area to ensure the safety of its inhabitants. Use airstrikes and special operations outside the zone to ensure that civilians are able to reach it.
4. Use the zone as a basis for operations against ISIS, and as a place where political talks about the future of Syria can take place, to form the basis for a future government.
Doing this is simpler than a dirty and prolonged war against ISIS and/or Assad, and doesn't require taking over the entirety of Syria. At the same time it would cut ISIS from the Western world, as well as help contain the massive wave of refugees coming out of Syria.
