Assad is exactly like Saddam was in Iraq (except that he never fought wars with any of his neighbors).
Both countries were ruled by the Baath party (though fierce rivals of each other, not allied).
The Baathist party governing structure was based on both the Nazi and Soviet Communist party terror models. Both surpressed religious extremism (along with everything else deemed not supporting teh regime).
Both were ruthless. And effective. And removing them - in both countries, has brought about a completely predictable anarchy favoring the most extremist religious elements.
In both countries cases, that move was a totally predictable - and avoidable - catastrophe.
So, it turns out that Bush I was right in leaving Saddam in place.
We have Dubya (Iraq Invasion, 2003)- and The Marxist (”Arab Spring” fomenting) - to thank for the Middle East disasters of the past 15 years.
There’s something to be said for leaving a partly filled vacuum be if nothing better is at hand to fill it.
Islamic countries won’t turn into secular liberal democracies without something like an Ataturk figure.
This predictable anarchy was the goal of Obama's Arab Spring with Clinton and McCain doing the dirty work. Libya was also a result of the Obama doctrine and Egypt as well but it seems the military kept control. The vacuum created by removing dictators led to ISIS. (Obviously removing the Shah led to what we have in Iran today.) I have no clue why anyone thinks extremist Islamic "governments" are the lessor evil to totalitarian regimes. What does it matter if Shia vs Sunni kill each other? Is it worth American life and treasure?
This administration should have absolutely no legitimate reason to meddle in any of Obama's trash can.
That’s a very accurate list of the historical themes and causes. How risky it is, to take away a structure, without being sure of what will happen next.