No Arms for Syrian Rebels

I've come to this conclusion about the rebels in Syria just today. No arming any rebel groups in Syria. We take our friends in there, crush ISIL, and the Syrian government can sit back and watch or go to war with us. Their choice, and I would hope they choose wisely. That goes for any rebels in Syria too. Hands off our forces or get crushed. This is a position of strength. You tell them the way it will be, then follow through. And let me tell you Syria doesn't want to jump in to war with the United States. If unleashed, our forces could easily decimate them as well.

It was asked of me "At what cost to the United States?"

At much less cost than arming the rebels. Syria will not oppose a force that wishes to eliminate ISIL. The FSA is in disarray, but they still hold on. They will not oppose a force that wishes to eliminate ISIL. I think they both will tolerate it because a common enemy will be eliminated. Syria and the FSA can continue to fight among them self. In the end they will defeat Assad, but not with arms we provide. Not in this round anyway. That is one of the things that keeps getting us into trouble. Arming this group and that, only for them to turn on us. This group will be costly indeed if we play into their hands. So far the president has reacted from a position of weakness. Their has to be an image of power emanating from the United States, of leadership. So far I see weakness, and a congress that ignores its war time duties. The congress will lay it all at the president's feet, then blame him for any bad outcome. The cost to the US is far greater if we arm the rebels. Another thing, if we arm the rebels, any time one of them are killed, or a position is taken, so too will any weapons left behind. Then in the future when we do have to send troops, be it our own or those of other nations, they will be at greater risk.

Congress forges ahead with Obama's request to arm Syrian rebels