Jaicee said:
VGPolyglot said:

This shouldn't be shocking at all really, the US used them for their bidding when they were useful to them, however now that ISIS have been driven out essentially, and with Iraq having essentially regained control of most of their territory, the US felt much less of a reason to continually support them, and will now probably put more funding/support into regimes that actually align more with their own initiatives and interests.

However, I don't really see how the result would have been different with Hillary Clinton as president, I assume she would have done essentially the same.

She made it clear, both during the campaign and after, that, as far as she was concerned, the Assad regime needed to go, perhaps in the same sort of fashion that the Libyan dictator was pushed out in 2010. Unsexy as it may be to support such an opportunistic American bombing adventure, the fact is that it would have benefited the only real progressive forces on the ground in Syria a lot. There's no way that they'd currently be stuck defending themselves against attacks mainly coming from Turkey and, well, the Assad regime were the Assad regime not there anymore.

Short-term I could see them supporting them, yes, but their ideology contrasts with the US to the point that the US would either have to sway them into changing it, or the US would attempt a coup that would be more favourable to them, as what happened in Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Panama, etc.