Syria is another matter, especially since the U.S. has done virtually nothing there. Obama arrogantly told Syria President Bashir Assad to turn his government over to the “people” in 2011 and get outta Dodge. No one knew who the “people” were – except for Senator McCain, who did a grand photo-op ostensibly with the right “people” a while back – so getting weapons to the right “people” was not actually an option, as was the case with U.S. boots on the ground.
There are a handful of Christians in Syria who don't have to fear for their lives, and girls can go to school there under normal governmental circumstances. In fact, in 2001 Syria adopted a slogan of "education for girls" as part of its participation in the celebration of the annual Women's World Day. Sharia Law would change all of that, the Christians murdered and the girls becoming illiterate slaves to illiterate brutish Muslim/Arab men.
In Syria, Assad and his military are all that stand between Sharia Law and freedom, at least as much freedom as is allowed in any middle-eastern nation. The same is true for Iraq's President al-Maliki and military, which currently is a powder-puff army commanded by a president who seems more interested in establishing an overbearing Shi'ite government in the same sense that Saddam created an overbearing Sunni government, though with only some 35-40% of the population.
This creates for Obama the awkward position of being in the middle in both places. In Syria to prevent ISIS from becoming successful, he's forced to throw-in with Assad, who assuredly hates Obama's guts for all the meddling and mischief he's caused, especially encouraging, at least vocally, the insurgents to throw bodies at Assad—blood in the streets as Assad has more than answered in kind, which is what Obama would also do if faced with the same problem. This is what Lincoln did in 1861.
This is where the rubber hits the road since Assad's well advertised, obviously supportive ally is Russia's Putin, who already has completely outdone Obama in getting Assad to export his WMD, as well as getting Obama off the hook with regard to any further meddling in Syria (the damnable “red lines” never enforced). Much of the ISIS weaponry has already been furnished by the U.S., the “leftover” weapons from Obama's failed attempt to give Libya to the “people,” and the U.S.-furnished materiel in Iraq that has been confiscated as the Iraqi army retreats toward Baghdad.
The plot thickens as Shi'ite leaders in Iran watch Maliki's back, remembering the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s, when Muslim-Sunni Saddam used gas on both Iranis as well as Kurds in his own north-country, not to mention his oppression of Iraqi Shi'ites in his south-country. Remember the years-long no-fly zones by the U.S. military? This puts Obama on the ayatollah's side and makes him an ally of Israel-hating Iran President Rouhani.
Cut Obama some slack, though! He's made some terrible decisions about Muslim countries in general and absolutely devastated Libya, but soon after taking office Bush 43 declared that the U.S. would not do nation-building, a wise decision. Then, he reneged in both Afghanistan and Iraq, in both of which countries he had the good sense to intervene but the disastrous judgment that either Muslim-dominated country was amenable to democracy.
If Bush had listened to the historians and religionists he would have known that no amount of treasure or blood could have produced democracies in those countries. When Saddam was captured, the U.S. should have left Syria. When the Taliban and al Qaeda were driven out of Afghanistan in December 2001, Bush should have made a military presence his only goal, not nation-building, never mind all the purple fingers of the people who thought they voted.
So...how will the new allies—Iran, Russia, U.S., Syria, Iraq—make it work? Stay tuned.
And so it goes.