batshit Thanks for responding to my question.
If the so-called moderate rebels weren't being given some help from outside the country, there would be absolutely nothing to stop Assad. There wouldn't be a civil war. Is that what you want? Peace at the cost of a nation enslaved to a corrupt regime? I agree that arming the rebels was a poor decision in terms of context and the lack of a plan but there is a need to empower the groups being targeted by Assad.
There may or may not be a plan to create tension in the Middle East. I suspect it's more a case of tension being collateral damage as the West ruthlessly exploits the resources in that region. However, the following is also true: the people of Syria have been calling for reform for a very long time. There are many internal reasons why the political situation in Syria was heating up all on its own - dwindling fuel reserves, water shortages, lack of a free economy leading to a struggle to survive, the example set by nearby countries in 2011. And then the regime got nervous and went too far, also in spring 2011. It justified reactionary, brutal, 'peace keeping' measures by claiming that peaceful demonstrations (and graffiti) were signs of a Western conspiracy to create instability, rather than the reasonable demands of Syrian citizens expressed in largely peaceful demonstrations. It was in response to Assad's actions that the Free Syrian Army gathered force and demonstrations (such as might be held in any country) turned into what is effectively a revolution.
Given that the regime was carting off children as young as five and starving them and beating them to death, I don't think it was entirely irresponsible of other countries to say, 'These people have a right to defend themselves against a regime that is massacring its citizens'. At that point, the FSA had no option but to turn to ISIS for help with arms because they didn't have any. Again it wasn't entirely ridiculous of other countries to suppose that the FSA's links with ISIS would weaken if the former wasn't dependent on ISIS for arms (in fact they weren't mistaken in thinking that way - many of the rebel forces are moderate and are not, as mumsnetters seem to believe, the same as ISIS).
It was primarily Assad who made this war a matter of race and creed, not the West and not the Syrian people. He justified his actions and turned groups within the country against each other along racial lines by claiming they were at risk from extremist Islamists who would kill them all. He even carried out the kinds of massacres that extremist Sunni Muslim groups might carry out, just to prove the threat was 'real'. In reality, many rebel Sunni forces gave up on ISIS early on because their goals and methods were too different. Most rebel forces want a free Syria (democratically elected government, humane justice system and free economy), not Sharia law.
Of course the West is guilty for a great many things but please don't agree with Assad and overlook the narrative that this civil war is a natural, reasonable uprising to an intolerable regime.