The Syrian civil war pits the Alawite minority, which supports fellow Alawite Assad, against the Shiite majority, which includes plenty of Islamic fundamentalist groups likely to be hostile to the US if they win. A saving grace is that Hezbollah, which even the Europeans finally admitted is a terrorist group, have taken Assad's side. That should provide some impetus for the UN to intervene with a peace-keeping force. That's going to be needed for a long time to keep the sides from killing each other. The priority is for humanitarian relief. America's role should be limited, lest we fall into another bottomless pit of Mideast factionalism.
Syria doesn't have a Shiite majority. While friendly with Shiite majority of Iran, over 70% of Syrians are Sunnis, hence the civil (read religious) war that is going on. Alawite is a sec of Shitte.
All that said, aside from Syria being a safe haven for Iran to organize Hezbollah, Assad ran almost a secular government. I've been there twice, women could choose what to wear. There were women who wore hejab of their own accord and those who didn't and nobody made trouble for anyone. People could drink alcohol without reproach. I think if Sunnis come to power, just as Muslim brotherhood came to power in Egypt, things would get tough especially for the minorities. So that's pros and cons of Assad staying or going.
Obama dropped the ball. He should have recognized right from the start that "Arab Spring" was a major opportunity for statesmanship and American influence. He could have enunciated an "Obama Doctrine"--the US welcomes democratic movements in the Arab and Middle Eastern nations, and will support regimes that are democratic, egalitarian, tolerant of religious minorities, and that reject terrorism. He could have let the Arab nations, the world--and his fellow Americans--know where we stood, and what we stood for. Instead, he sat back and dithered. He backed himself into a corner in Syria with his "cross the red line" comment about use of chemical weapons. Did that constitute a well-thought-out policy with an end-view of what Syria would look like after American intervention?
I'm not sure what this firm stand is. Taking sides in affairs of another country is neither wise, nor helpful when both sides are essentially fighting and trying to show they are doing this for the good of their own country and not for the benefit of a superpower whose record in meddling in Middle East has antagonized most locals. In fact right upon the US taking sides with one group, people would take a step back and check their choices of supporting that group. Obama did the best and wisest thing for our Green movement and I hope he stays away from this conflict in Syria. Arab spring was bound to happen, now, or later when the US would be way weaker to meddle in these countries affairs. People of this region are doomed to go through these mistakes on their own, otherwise they never can establish long lasting secular governments.
