Why I am sick of the lies about Obama in Syria

Reading an article just recently which criticized Trump's plan to ally with Russia and Assad, destroy ISIS and implement safe zones, I am infuriated by the blindness that seems to infect most of the political left regarding Obama's role in Syria.

Again and again Obama is held up as morally superior to George W. Bush and Trump because he refused to put ground troops in Syria, whereas Bush put ground troops in Iraq and Trump will probably do so in Syria.

Firstly, ISIS wouldn't even exist as an entity separate from Al-Qaeda if it weren't for Barrack Obama! Obama is very much responsible for the rise of ISIS in Syria by refusing to implement a cease-fire in Syria unless Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian President, were removed.

Obama funding any rebels who were against Bashar Al-Assad has caused untold suffering for the Syrian people, because instead of facing American ground troops, the Syrians were for the most part facing ISIS or their equivalent.

Obama did put ground troops in Syria, but his ground troops were ISIS. Even after ISIS took over Mosul and declared a Caliphate, Obama still used ISIS as a hammer to chip away at the Syrian Arab Army. He bombed ISIS everywhere in Syria, except where they attacked the Syrian Arab Army.

Trump sees that America - more specifically, Obama - created this mess in Syria. To end Syrian intervention honourably is to undo the disgusting Obama policy which overran Syria with ISIS and Al-Qaeda, which had threatened the extermination of Christians, Alawites and Druze - until Russia intervened.

Obama in my eyes is guilty of worse war crimes than George W. Bush. And I wish the whole world knew it, rather than slobbering after the Obama Legacy as if it were something special.

How long before Trump leaves Syria?

It is hard to know for sure, but the options are clear.

On the one hand, Trump could escalate the conflict - likely on the side of Turkey and with implicit allegiance from Syria, Iran and Russia - in removing ISIS from Syria completely. It would make sense for Turkish and American forces to attack northern Syria across Aleppo and Raqqa provinces, to proceed in building safe zones in that region taken from ISIS. After the establishment of such safe zones, it would be likely Trump would withdraw from Syria.

Meanwhile Assad, Russia and Iran would move from the central region of Syria to secure Homs and Deir-Ez Zor provinces from ISIS. This cooperation to destroy ISIS could be readily achieved with Turkey already allied with Russia in defeating ISIS.

On the other hand, Trump could leave Syria altogether and leave Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria to fight ISIS. This would make the tangled web less complicated, and perhaps even a deal could be struck between America and Turkey: that Turkey's efforts in Syria would pay for a certain amount of their NATO budget.

Trump certainly does not need to stay in Syria, and in my own opinion, to do so would be economically foolish. With Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia on America's list of countries they are bombing, Syria is just too financially costly a campaign to maintain. Trump exiting from fighting ISIS in Syria would force other players on the ground to take more of the mantle, and consume valuable resources of other players to their own economic detriment - in particular Iran.

It makes more sense for America to focus on fighting ISIS in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan - the coalitions fighting in Syria have already shown an ability to make their own headway in ending the conflict without Washington.