OK I'll try and put some figures on for you
The first article dates from August 2013, the position of the secularists has deteriorated since
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/09...-good-guys-and-bad-guys/#.Ui6lwS-cszh.twitter
Shortly into this article you'll get a link to something written by Charles Lister for Janes Terrorism and Insurgency Centre that better breaks down the groupings which are increasingly being called 'rebels'. You might only be able to view it once before it locks you out and tries to get you to make an account (at which point you'll doubtless be peppered to death by 1000 emails)
The upshot (for those unable to read it) is that as much as 60%+ of the insurgency (the anti Assad rebels) would be capable of being described as anti democratic and working towards an Islamic State. It concludes that there are as many as 1000 distinct rebel groups, many of which are only really active in their own locality. The trend however has been towards the Islamist conservatives gaining followers, and winning the military encounters (this has continued since it was written). The other trend is that groups that were once considered moderate, have increasingly been vulnerable to losing the emotional argument, with many suffering defections of conscience and moving over, predominantly to Al Nusra and then ISIL
During his 'case for bombing' made this week Cameron claimed that there were 70,000 FSA soldiers with the implication that these were reliable moderates. He was challenged by one of his own MP's on this. Cameron never rebutted the challenge.
We might conclude the 70,000 is the residual of an out dated John Kerry figure from this period (2013), as the three broad groups featured under the rebel banner conveniently add up to 70,000. They are;
9,000 fighters from Suqor Al Sham - Their commander is technically aligned to the FSA, but in the field they've been fighting alongside Ahrar Al Sham, Jabhat Al Nusra and ISIS. They might be under the rebel umbrella for accounting purposes, but they've rejected democracy and are pledged to create an Islamic State. They should really be considered 'bad guys'
31,000 Free Syrian Army - this figure is felt to be nearer to 20,000 now due to deaths, defections, and most prevalent, a hardening of attitudes. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee took evidence on this and concluded as follows regarding the fighting capability and alignment of the FSA on page 14 of their recent report
"witnesses told us that there were few “moderates” left and that the FSA was now “very weak”. There appeared to be little chance of a legitimate and functioning ally emerging from the chaos soon".
This just left the 30,000 broadly aligned to Liwa al Tawid, Liwa al Islam and the Farook Brigades. These are the groups that America has recently been trying to flesh up, but it's a long way short of being able to win a war at the moment and close to the last throw of the dice (not impossible though imho)
The picture increasingly is that the bad guys are starting to out number the good guys.
An interesting dynamic is that the fighting strength of ISIL in Syria and Iraq has remained the same throughout the conflict (about 30,000). Basically the 'zeal' for democracy generates no where near the same level of fighting commitment as Islam. ISIL just bring in new recruits to replenish their deaths, the moderate opposition struggle. Moderate opposition can express whatever opinion they like over a telephone to a DC polling organisation. So what? If it isn't translating into a fighting commitment, it's much diminished in the context of this conflict. If you want to maintain the idea of using market research Clive, then think of it terms of the expressed preference versus the revealed preference. In this case the revealed actions are more important to the outcome than the expressed opinion. Very few of those expressing a preference are prepared to back it up, and choose flight ahead of fight. This was foreseeable, and this is why relying on an expressed preference to inform your understanding of the likely outcome was borderline negligent.
Supply is critical to the tactical outcome. The principal supply route into ISIL territory is still the north west of Syria through Turkey (the bit where the Russian plane was shot down). This needs blocking up the best we can. In addition we're also likely to have the problem of a Kurdish homeland to plant on the Turkish border longer term (shades of Israel). All the ingredients are there for absolute mayhem, and especially if it starts to develop a Sunni Shia conflict with Iranian involvement, or if Putin actually invades and comes into conflict with western proxys
For all their efforts in Iraq, the RAF estimate they've killed just 300 ISIL combatants. When the ISIL baby making factories come on stream proper in the next decade, (today's infants reaching martyrdom age) they'll be outputting more than this every week. We need a more substantial action to be honest
For now though the only fighting force that looks capable of taking on ISIL and the various Islamist affiliates in Syria on these projections is the Alawite army of President Assad. I think they'll lose though without support as they too can't replenish their losses at the rate they need to, and reckon Putin has also come to that conclusion too. The west are no where near to swallowing this hard fact yet, and are really burying their heads in the sand.
Basically our options are running out, but the direction of travel is a reproachment with Putin and some kind accommodation with Assad
