AFAIK the jihadi groups weren't in Syria until Assad repressed the demonstations in early 2011 and militarized the situation rather than negotiating a sharing of power with the people (something dictators generally are reluctant to do). Similarly jihadi groups weren't in Iraq until we invaded it. I think I see a pattern here.
I know some want us to reluctantly support the dictator (or at least, not support the opposition to him) in a form of real politic in which he is better than the alternative. I would counter that we have supported enough dictators over the decades because they seemed to offer 'stability' regardless of the price the people in his country have to pay for our "global vision".
If Assad's plan was to militarize the conflict so that he would either win quickly (with tanks and artillery the odds were in his favor) or, if the conflict dragged on, eventually present the world with an "it's me or the jihadis" alternative, then he is a genius - if not a modern Nelson Mandela.
Of course, who is forgotten in the "it's me or the jihadis" scenario - the people of Syria. Like people everywhere most of them just want to live their lives in peace, go to work every day, support their families and and have some say in how they are governed - not exactly radical concepts. Whether Assad wins and holds on to the power bequeathed to him by his father or the jihadis win, the future does not look good for them. I suppose we can hope there is at least a slight chance of a third option involving last-minute negotiations that would include Assad's departure before a final battle finished his rule.
I'm sure that dictators everywhere are pulling for him. The strategy of 'repress protests first' then, if repression doesn't work, present the world with a "it's the me or the jihadis" choice is a tactic that dictators (who have the tanks, artillery and secret police in their countries) can embrace.
= new reply since forum marked as read