With the US promising to attack ISIS in Syria soon, the Syrian government is shifting its own strategy in the ongoing civil war, leaving ISIS more or less alone for the US to deal with as they focus on the other rebel factions.
In the Aleppo and Homs Provinces, Syria is focusing its airstrikes on those smaller rebel factions, killing 48 people today in attacks. The strikes are setting the stage for a new military push northward.
Though the US is insisting they’re not going to coordinate with the Assad government, and is even trying to couch their intervention in Syria as aimed at strengthening non-ISIS rebels, it’s clear the move is giving Syria a big chance to turn the tables and recover lost ground from other rebel factions.
That’s because before, the Assad government was committing massive resources to fighting ISIS expansion deeper into their territory. With ISIS now shifting toward fighting the US, and US airstrikes expecting to start soon, the Syrian military can more or less focus entirely on retaking land from the Islamic Front and other smaller factions.
The offensive is likely to fuel more calls for the US to step up arms to such rebels, and likewise push those rebels to ally closer with ISIS.
US should continue bombing the hell out of these barbarians for two reasons. 1- knowingly or not knowing what USG was involved and created, they should bomb these Stone Age barbarians. 2- this is 2014 mankind is developed to a point where it can reach the moon and beyond, at this time of mankind history/development there shouldn't be any barbarians regimes wanting to bring back the rule of cave man.
How will this played out is anybody’s guess. How do you destroy an ideology? We never did destroy Al-Qaeda, their ranks only expanded dramatically.
That New York Times story is a piece of lying propaganda, using unsubstantiated statements from two local figures to make an agitprop statement that the Syrian government has changed its strategy. Jason: you should not have spread it that way, including in your headline. Be a little more skeptical: look at the (lack of) evidence and the Times' obvious motivation in pushing this crap.