The United States and the rest of NATO must ask themselves this question. The Kurdish fighters are our allies in the region, and if they fall, ISIS will have no other obstacles in defeating Assad.
Ever since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, I have stated my belief that the US should back Assad rather than the rebel fighters. Granted Assad is a very tyrannical leader, he has kept peace in Syria. It seems that in the Middle East and North Africa, a democratic state cannot be built and sustained (Libya, Egypt, and Iraq are prime examples). In Egypt the people elected Morsi, who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi was not a popular leader and the people started uprisings and the military staged a coup and it is still in control of the government.
Libya and Iraq are self-explanatory with their democratic success (or lack thereof). Terror has been reigning in Libya, even to the point that Do-Nothing Obama had to close the American embassy (Benghazi article coming soon) because of the terror threat that was posed to Americans.
Iraq has been a total disaster. The US pulled out too quickly and it led to the rise of ISIS.
So, back to my original question. Can America afford to bomb ISIS, and then support “moderate” rebels in Syria?
The answer is no.
Either the US and the rest of NATO back a dictator, or they do nothing and allow a terrorist group to reign in the region.
There are infinite advantages to backing Assad. America and NATO would have the backing of the Russian military, as well as their incredible intelligence system. It could also be used as a bargaining chip to end the hell in West Russia (Donetsk and Lugansk). Vladimir Putin would gladly support the coalition, and many other Arab nations would be willing to join the coalition, mainly because they are very reliant on Russian weaponry.
Although it would be a backtrack from America’s pro-democracy foreign policy, we need to put peace first, and ourselves second.