Why all people think that Assad and ISIS are the only choices?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If I were President, the commitment of American troops to the coalition would be contingent on toppling KSA and ending the state sponsor of Wahhabism.

I don't see that as a realistic option. The oil companies, and other corporations dependent on cheap fossil energy, would scream bloody murder as introducing instability in such a large producer, and any politician who went along with that plan could kiss a large part of his campaign funding -- not to mention his career -- goodbye; and that would not be limited to just you as, let's say, a lame-duck President with nothing to lose. You'd have to carry Congress in the face of such opposition.

That's not to mention the domestic political distaste for massive deployments to the ME following on the Iraq quagmire.

I agree with you that until America addresses KSA's shadow role in fomenting terror and unrest via off-the-books financing, not much will change. But unless a lucky opportunity for a decisive victory arises, the mess will boil away merrily with or without international intervention, I think -- or until the populace there finally sickens of it all.

Chuck's point about the role of Russia in this affair is also pertinent. Syria hosts their only Mediterranean base. Thave a vested interest in keeping Assad in power, but we both know that so long as Assad is in power that after this bloody four-year war a significant proportion of the Syrian population will never again accept him as ruler, meaning that so long as Russia keeps a ladle in the pot, the stew will be kept simmering.