In January 2014, the US, Russia and UN convened a conference in

Switzerland to implement the 2012 Geneva Communique, an

internationally backed agreement that called for the establishment of a
transitional governing body in Syria formed on the basis of mutual
consent.
The talks, which became known as Geneva II, broke down in February
after only two rounds. The then UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi
blamed the Syrian government's refusal to discuss opposition demands
and its insistence on a focus on fighting "terrorists" a term Damascus
uses to describe rebel groups.

President Bashar al-Assad looks remarkably relaxed for a man who has
been at the centre of the catastrophe that has hit Syria in the last four
years.
When it comes to defending his record, or the conduct of the Syrian armed
forces, he is firm.
He repeated more than once, in different ways, during an interview lasting almost
half an hour that as president he has been nothing more than a patriot, fighting to
save his country from disaster.
War, he accepted, caused casualties. But Syrian soldiers, also patriots, would, he
says, never harm their own people deliberately, as a matter of policy.
'Cooking pots'
In Syria, across the Middle East and around the world his many enemies will
dismiss his view of the war.
For them, he has been in charge of a killing machine that has been chewing
Syrians up and spitting them out.
As the war enters its fifth year, the barrel bomb has become the most notorious
weapon in the regime's arsenal.
Two or three years ago, I saw the results of what must have been one in Douma,
a suburb of Damascus that has been held by rebels since close to the beginning
of the war.
Local people talked of seeing a large object being dropped from the back of a
helicopter.
Mr Assad insisted that the Syrian army would never use them in a place where
people lived.
"I know about the army. They use bullets, missiles and bombs. I haven't heard of

the army using barrels, or maybe, cooking pots.

A July 2000 referendum confirmed him as president with 97% of the vote.
In his inaugural address, Mr Assad promised wide-ranging reforms, including
modernising the economy, fighting corruption and launching "our own democratic
experience.
In foreign policy, Bashar al-Assad has continued his father's hardline policy
towards Israel. He has repeatedly said that there will be no peace unless
occupied land was returned "in full", and continues to support militant groups
opposed to Israel.
"I was made in Syria. I have to live in Syria and die in Syria," Mr Assad told
Russia Today in November 2012.

Did Bashar's idealistic vision of creating a "Switzerland" Syria -- but

still consolidating power at the top -- play a role in the uprising

When he assumed power, the lifestyle the West still occupied Assad's mind -- In
his inaugural speech he emphasized that it was time to begin modernizing Syria.
But to modernize Syria and remake it in the "image" he desired, he needed to
adopt neo-liberal (relating to a modified form of liberalism tending to favor freemarket capitalism) and capitalist policies, both of which stirred up a strong
resistance from his father's old guard, who founded the socialist and secular
Ba'ath Party. Not knowing the long-term consequences of marrying neoliberalism

with the authoritarian structure, Bashar gained short-term benefits with his vast
changes, but he also planted the seed of revolution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/how-basharal-assad-became-so-hated/275058/
The U.S. Should Help Assad to Fight ISIS, the Greater Evil

We would like to ask the US Govt to help us defeat the greater evil, the
ISIS
But from a national security perspective, Washington has a greater obligation to
defend American civilians, even if that means working alongside the Alawite
dictator. The nature of this cooperation could vary from uncoordinated airstrikes
to joint operations. But its time for the Obama administration to pick its poison
by prioritizing the safety of American civilians over the moral objection of helping
out a leader who massacres his own. ISIS is a global threat and a huge threat to
the Americans.

In the past, Assads forces were reluctant to engage ISIS directly. But the gloves
have come off in the last couple of weeks. If Assad perceives ISIS as an existential
threat, he will tolerate even secretly welcome U.S. military assistance. This is
an opportunity Washington should seize not for him, but for us.

Why Assad should stay?

If Assad is knocked out of power or if the rebels are not exterminated

by the SA then the country will be thrown into an eternal proxy
warfare. FSA is in no respected position to form a coercive government.

They barely have control over their own people and they are helpless
against the growing number of fundamentalist factions who will
eventually unite for their common cause against the FSA once Bashar
is out of power. You'll have pro-Assad groups combating anti-Assad
groups, members of families seeking revenge from their killed loved
one (this goes both ways), Iran-backed mercenaries, Saudi-backed
mercenaries, the remaining FSA, and al-Qaeda-linked groups as well as
many other heavily backed fundamentalist groups, all fighting each
other, just as shown in other middle-eastern countries, Syria being the
worst. Not only that, but Assad, the state and many other key positions
in security and wealth are virtually indistinguishable due to his
dictatorship which involves the close relationship between the state
and the upper-class. Killing all of the Assad supporters would be like
hitting the reset button on the Syrian economic timeline, given that
most of their infrastructure is already vastly in ruin. For the FSA to
think that they can walk straight into office unopposed while expecting
the people to obey their order is a joke. A funny, sad joke. Iran has
many U.S. military bases with their guns pointed directly at it, I doubt
they would accept another one.
Although it is sad to say in such a gloomy situation, the only hope for
the Syrian people is if Bashar stays in power for his remaining term
(which he added in the constitution due to protest) and neutralize all
rebel factions, including the FSA, and then give the people the human
rights they deserve. Otherwise there will be no rights, now law; just
anarchy.

Assad support
The reason he is being shown any favor today is that he opposes ISIS. Basically,
many in the West, wishing to bring an end to the ISIS threat, are willing to deal
with the lesser of two evils. With Syria suffering as much as 300,000 lost to the
war and another 8,000,000 without their homes since 2011, a full 3 times more
than the entire suffering caused during the whole of the Iraq War, the world
community has probably all just accepted that something must be done before
the country dies out completely.

ISIS, they're completely inhuman, and do not deserve to exist. Assad is

barely any better, but, he's secular, Syria was safe and was doing well
before the revolution and does not hold beliefs like a whole ethnic
group (Yazidis) should be sexually enslaved for Islamic fighters.
A bad state, or hell on earth, I know which I'd pick. Order is more
important than freedom at the moment in Syria, and only Assad has
the capability to enforce it.

ISIS is more powerful than Assad

While ISIS lacks an airforce, the planes at Assad's disposal are outdated and not
effective enough to counter ISIS advantages. ISIS on a whole are more mobile
and have better quality infantry. They also posses tanks and effective AT
weapons, which can compensate for the numeric superiority of Assad's armor.
SAA armored tactics are sub-par and their officer corps mostly incompetent, as
many IDF veterans can atest. In terms of numbers, ISIS has slightly less men, but
are more motivated.