"The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention." -pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
Confirming this, Clifford May of the Neo-Conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) openly admits that "humanitarian concerns" has nothing to do with the West\'s involvement in Syria, and that it is rather a proxy war being fought against Iran, and by extension, Russia. May also clearly states that ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is the objective of Western machinations, not the restoration of order or any sort of brokered ceasefire that ends the killing. May in fact states very explicitly that he would like to see a repeat of NATO\'s intervention in Libya carried out against Syria. It should be remembered that NATO\'s intervention saw the unfolding in reality of the atrocities falsely attributed to Qaddafi in the lead up to the war.
Source: Activist Post: US & UN Openly Waging War on Syria
