Look at where it is. Jordan would be foolish to grant permission, and to use Israeli air space would be to invite claims of Israeli complicity in the rebellion against Assad. Israel's so far been just on its own side and used self-defense as its justification for air strikes, not "we want to overthrow Assad."
The definition-based fallacy at work here is in the referent for "Syrian rebels." We like to think that it's only words that matter, but it's really referents, what the words refer to, what they mean, that matters in propositional logic and judgments as to veridicality.
I hear "Syrian rebels" and I think the Kurds and others in the east and northeast. These are not they; these have not had US troops embedded. These are the rebels that we had that wonderful program that cost millions of dollars and months of training, only to have a couple of Syrians graduate. Most of the rest went to fight for groups that the US was not supportive of. It was a boondoggle, but it was a boondoggle that we hushed up over. Smells like team spirit. In other words, "Syrian rebels" has a different referent in the headline from what this reader, at least, assumed in feeling the original sense of outrage.
Any good wordsmith would be aware of this. Otherwise s/he should go back to high school.
Now, these are also rebels that resisted not so much ISIS as Assad. The US's fight has been with ISIS first, and to a smaller extent avoiding Kurdish oppression. This is neither. We've put a line in the sand between Assad/Russia and Kurdish-tinged/US territory, but we've said nothing about Arab rebels in the SW under Trump.
So not only is it logistically difficult to do much to help these rebel, but the ideological/Realpolitik reason that we use in helping those in the east is also lacking.
Now, we can condemn the US presence in the east even as we cry "perfidy" in not providing a US presence in the west (anything for a cry of condemnation), but while not enshrined in current treaty there's an old international doctrine of hot pursuit. It says that if a country is hosting a hostile force that stages raids into or invades another country, that country has a right to pursue their foe across the border and the host country has no real right to complain about its violation of sovereignty. A country could not use claims of sovereignty to shield a hostile force while claiming immunity from consequences. This was extended to lawless areas where claims of sovereignty by the "host country" were specious and the hostile force was really in charge. If nothing else, we could dig deep into tradition for a US presence accompanying local forces in the east. There's no such justification in the SW.
= new reply since forum marked as read
