One day AQ fighters are U.S. drone targets, the next they're

[cali]

benefiting from U.S. missile strikes against the Assad regime.

Should the U.S. launch a military strike, the above will be true.

How U.S. Strikes on Syria Help al Qaeda

With the international community pondering a retaliatory strike against Syria as retribution for its reported use of chemical weapons, the opposition is smitten with joy. For more than two years, it has unsuccessfully tried to drag the world powers from their spectators’ seats into the arena. But though America and its allies appear ready to strike, the Syrian opposition will not benefit. For in the cauldron of chaos that Syria has become, it is the jihadists who control the strongest brigades.

Militants from the Qaeda affiliate the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) kidnap Westerners and fighters from other brigades with impunity. They kill leaders from the rebel-led Free Syrian Army (FSA) without the slightest fear of retribution. ISIS controls key roads, dams, and grain silos, with checkpoints everywhere. In the northern provinces of Aleppo, Idlib, and al-Raqqa, the organization is either the most or second-most powerful brigade. ISIS is an A-Team force among FSA units composed of squabbling Gomer Pyles.

ISIS’s success in Syria is nothing new. In every conflict in which jihadists participate, they quickly become the most dominant fighting force. Several factors account for their supremacy in Syria. Experience from other conflicts—including Chechnya, Iraq, and Mali—provides them with an institutional knowledge of fighting that local combatants often lack. They are frequently the most courageous warriors on the battlefield. Their martial spirit attracts the admiration of locals who seek to join their elite band of brothers. Today, American intelligence agencies believe more than 6,000 foreigners are fighting in Syria.

<snip>

As Washington contemplates striking Syria, it should not be fooled into believing that an air offensive will tip the battle in the FSA’s favor. Instead, the bombs America will drop will be manna for ISIS. For Syria is slowly becoming the jihadist haven al Qaeda has historically sought in the heart of the Arab world. And nothing short of a sustained campaign that Washington has no stomach for can prevent this prophecy from materializing.

<snip>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/how-u-s-strikes-on-syria-help-al-qaeda.html

[pampango]

1. That is true, but AQ is also worried that it will be targeted in any strike.

It is not just the Assad regime that is bracing itself. Jihadists fear the US may seek to kill two birds with one stone by targeting them as well, amid fears that they emerge the winners if the Assad regime is overthrown. On Foreign Policy, Charles Lister writes:

In a note entitled "Important Instructions... Before the US initiates its Mission," distributed via social media on 27 August, senior Fatah al-Islam leader Abdullah Shaker (Abu Bakr) claimed: "For each and every missile that strikes a missile site, there will be another that targets the mujahideen's positions," suggesting such strikes would aim to kill as many jihadist leaders as possible. Shaker went on to advise all jihadists to "change your positions, take shelter, and do not move in public," and underlined how previous experiences in Mali, Iraq, and Afghanistan had seen "the mujahideen destroyed in a very short time," as the necessary precautions were not undertaken. Shaker also advised against any attempts to deploy anti-aircraft weapons against US "raids" as this would "practically be suicidal."

Similar notes of warning and advice have been distributed by known Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS members and sympathizers, including an anonymous "brother familiar with the American media." He suggested on 25 August that in addition to US-led strikes targeting Syrian "radar systems, air defence systems, the chemical weapons industry, and stocks of Scud missiles," a second set of strikes would target "the training camps of Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS, the group's top tier leaders, and the sharia courts."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/30/syria-us-military-britain-live

It may just be paranoia in the context of the Syrian situation, but I suppose their fear is based on past experience elsewhere.

[cali]

2. I'd have to go with paranoia on their part

or political posturing. At least based on what the admin has stated.

[pampango]

8. As the saying goes, just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not really out to get you.

I suppose, it is smart of them to be "paranoid" to some extent. Their experiences with the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and with France on Mali mean they would be stupid to assume that the US (and France?) means them no harm this time.

There may be an element of posturing in their statements as well, if they are attacked I would not want to be the commander who did not take any precautions thinking "I really thought the US was on our side this time". Something tells me the higher-ups in AQ would not take kindly to that kind of rationalization.

[FarCenter]

3. Instead of striking only the Syrian government, also strike ISIS

In the fog of war, anything can go wrong.

Like lots of cruise missiles and drone strikes could stray from their targets and accidentally hit ISIS and other Islamic terrorist units.

[cali]

5. I think you have to ask what that would accomplish

the Islamic fighters are, by all accounts, the most potent of the rebel forces. If you damage them severely, aren't you just helping the regime? You couldn't wipe them all out in any case. The rebels have a lot of support both within Syria and from allies throughout the region and beyond.

[FarCenter]

9. Supposedly this would benefit the Free Syrian Army

Supposedly there are moderate Sunni and secular forces in the opposition to Assad that are also opposed to the Islamists.

It is not a two party conflict. There have been battles among the opposition forces already.

The only realistic outcome that is even moderately good would be to smash both the government and the Islamists and put it under a Turkish/French protectorate that could jointly protect the Alawite and Christian communities.

[The Straight Story]

4. Depends on the targets hit

Radars/anti-aircraft defenses/etc won't impact assad's ability to fight the various factions since those assets are not being used in that fight.

And if nothing else this would open up Syrian airspace for easier air strikes against al-qaida members there from the US should they so choose to do so (like in Yemen and Pakistan, not at war with either but we just struck in Pakistan again today).

If the US has a broader plan (who knows) remove assad's air defenses, strike the rebels, remove assad, stabilize the country with a government we desire and that will allow us to continue air strikes on the rebels and their leaders (not saying I am for that plan but can see it being part of a larger ideal given our past).

[cali]

6. The U.S. almost certainly doesn't have a broader plan

unless you believe the President is a reckless liar.

Furthermore there is no way to stabilize the country. None. Zip. Zero. That's just ridiculous.

[The Straight Story]

7. Not in the short term

We have been involved there since 2000, and they have a long history:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995