US Air raids are supporting rebels in Syria fighting ISIS for the first time. Yahoo/AFP.

Syrian government troops near Damascus. Yahoo/AFP

For the first time America has launched air raids in support of rebels, including the Al-Qaeda allied al-Nusra Front, that are fighting ISIS. Yahoo/AFP. The four airstrikes occurred in the city of Suran, near the Aleppo area, where a three way fight between the Islamic State, the Syrian government and the various other rebel groups has been raging for months. America has struck targets in Syria before but in the past those airstrikes had been limited to supporting the Kurds in the north or striking targets that are deep withing ISIS territory. The rebels in Aleppo are mostly secular, but are also allied with the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra who leads the extremist faction of the Syrian rebels. Al-Nusra has been targeted by U.S airstrikes in the past. 

My Comment:

To say I am uncomfortable with this would be an understatement. Though al-Nusra only has token forces near Aleppo, we are still supporting people that are directly allied with them. I don't have a problem in sending airstrikes against ISIS forces that are targeting rebels... as long as those rebels are fighting al-Nusra as well. We should never be working with people that work with Al-Qaeda, even indirectly. 

I'm sure some people would like to argue that because the secular rebels and Jihadi rebels are two separate groups, it's ok to support the secular ones. I disagree on both counts. Al-Nusra and its so called "Army of Conquest" alliance work directly with these rebels to the point that their only separate organizations in name only. And even if you don't buy that argument, there should still be a cost for working with our enemy. At the very least, that cost should be that we don't send airstrikes to support you.

With that being said, I doubt that these airstrikes will do much of anything against ISIS. The loss of a anti aircraft gun and a fighting position won't halt the ISIS advance in Syria. In the battle of Kobani, a massive air campaign only contributed to the Kurdish victory there. The actions of the fighters on the ground were the reason the battle was won. Slightly weakening the ISIS forces in the area won't hurt the rebel forces in the area, but they won't help them much either. 

The problem all three forces have in Syria is the fact that they are all fighting each other. In a three faction battle, where all groups are involved in a battle with each other, it is hard for any one side to gain an advantage. Each faction has their advantages, the Syrian government has air power and armor, the rebels have popular support and help from the outside world and ISIS has ideology and all the weapons they captured in Iraq. None of those advantages are so great that any one faction has the upper hand. 

In a world that made sense two of the factions would work together to destroy the third, but each side has obvious reason why that wouldn't work. As it stands right now, the Syrian regime is getting the worst of it, but it seems like the only reason for that is true is because of the geography of the territory being held. To put it simply there are a lot more places where ISIS and the Rebels can fight the regime instead of fighting each other. 

I don't think that there is a coherent strategy in Syria for the Americans. We are indirectly supporting people that are allied with al-Qaeda. That does not sound like the action of a reasoned and well thought out strategy. As I have said before, our current strategy in both Syria and Iraq is to look like we are doing something while actually doing nothing of any impact.