On February 15th the UN mediator for Syria apologized to the Syrian people about the non-existent progress the talks in Geneva brought about. The bloodshed that has been raging for two years now has cost the lives of more than 135,000 people and has led some 9.5 million to flee their homes. And it doesn’t appear to be anywhere close to winding down.
The Free Syrian Army, the Western-backed rebel group, seems incapable of stopping or talking down extremist factions who have time and again carried out suicide bombing at the expense of civilians. The largest of the rebel coalitions, the Islamic Front, and to a lesser extent the FSA itself, accept its members co-operation with disclosed affiliates of Al Qaeda.
Meanwhile, the government and Assad himself are oblivious and dismissive of any notion of a truce. Its open use of chemical weapons and its unwillingness to destroy them is nothing if not a middle finger to UN peace negotiations and talks of multilateral intervention. His new plan of attack includes making peace with some rebel groups whilst obliterating others.
The icing on the cake is the peace talks themselves. The USA block all discussion of giving arms to the rebels for fear they might end up in the ‘wrong hands’ (ie. Al Qaeda), albeit they have found a fruitful source in the land of Saudi Arabia. At the same time Mr. Obama ‘notes’ Russia’s involvement in the issue, which he regards as the support of an illegitimate government which the people of Syria wish to be freed of. He may be making a fair point, but if he doesn’t try to work with Mr. Putin, the chances of the end of this illegal occupation of sorts are dim. And as has been made clear at this point, no country is willing to step up and force an army through the Syrian lands to Assad’s front door. And the body count keeps rising. 
The truth of the matter is that a truce is a far-fetched hope. The rebels consider it treason even to talk with governmental forces, whilst Assad has made it clear that he won’t lay his sword. The belligerents may be just a bit too equal for the fighting to stop just yet.
So, how does one tip the scales? The answer is easy, yet sounds ill-advised at best.
If a peaceful resolution is nowhere in the horizon, the belligerents are uneager to step down and foreign intervention is a dead-end, in order to stop the deaths and unprecedented flight of civilians, then one party must be strengthened as to overpower the other. In other, more straightforward words, the rebels must be given guns.
Of course this will only pour oil to the flame, but in the short term. The rebels, most importantly the Syrian National Coalition, need the means to fight and overpower a president who is self-righteous enough to breach international laws of warfare to fire chemical weapons against his own people. It can even be said that they deserve it. They have fought long and hard enough to no avail, and if the West is reluctant to shoot the fires for their sovereignty, they should be given the chance to. Why talk of democracy – often force it – and not facilitate those who demand it? Especially since all diplomatic meddling has led nowhere.
The rebel coalitions may not be exactly the ones we would like firing freshly-stamped ‘Made in the USA’ bazookas. Many of them are affiliated with terrorists, their vision of a free Syria may be dubious. But they are their country’s best, if not only, fighting chance. At least who gets what will be under control, instead of decided on by Saudi Arabia. This may help Mr. Obama sleep better, and better manage the borders his armaments cross.
At the very least it will bring a long-overdue end. And this time, the West will not only have forged ties with the winning side; it will have created it.