If you followed Pol and my little discussion on this over the last few days, Iraq and Libya are worst off than when they were ruled by Saddam and Qaddafi. In fact, they are a lot worst off. Syria would be the same. I have never understood the obsession to do away with Assad, Qaddafi, Saddam or even Noriega back during Bush the first. Although I do think out of those 4, Panama is in a lot better shape than when Noriega was in charge. But Libya and Iraq are now basket cases, full of nothing but chaos and turmoil and breeding and training grounds for terrorist.
For Obama's strategy to work, he needs a competent ground force. The problem is his supposedly moderate Islamic rebels to number some 5,000 is at least a year away. Now that is 5,000 supposedly going up against 30,000 ISIS troops and 250,000 Syrian troops. The numbers do not add up. Now I am not forgetting the Iraqi, but they are a force who likes to run. Now the Kurds will fight, but not far from their homeland. So who is going to supply the ground forces? Our Air power and indigenous troops worked in Laos keeping the PL and NVA from taking over that country. Our Air Power and the Afghani troops of the Northern Alliance drove out the Taliban with just a few SF and para military on the ground. That is before all this nation building junk took place.
I think that ground force needed to defeat ISIS is sitting right there in Syria. Now the Arabs are not going to commit ground forces, neither is nato. If we want a stable Syria, make nice with Assad. If we want ISIS gone, make nice with Assad. that is my opinion anyway.