Here are some remarkable media mentions of Syria.
From RAND, the Pentagon think tank, on Alternative Futures for Syria.
Among the Key Findings:
Regime collapse, while not considered a likely outcome, was perceived to be the worst possible outcome for U.S. strategic interests.
…
It is regime victory that now appears to be most likely in the near to mid-term, due to the confluence of military and political factors favoring pro-Assad forces.
An Associated Press reporter visits the Latakia area and talks to the people who are all staunch supporter of the Syrian government: Syria's Alawites pay heavy price as they bury sons.
The piece includes this fact that has been true since the fighting in Syria started:
Syria's army represents the sectarian makeup of the country: it is largely Sunni Muslim, fighting mostly Sunni Muslim rebels.
This was so far hardly ever mentioned in "western" media" which was thereby propagandizing sectarianism and further war.
Another remark that does not fit the usual picture. Some people protest against President Assad not because he is fighting against the insurgents but because he is not waging enough war:
"If anything, their critique of Bashar is that he is too weak, so they would rather have a hard-line guy in power," said the aid worker, who requested anonymity because he wasn't meant to speak to reporters.
Also remarkable. Who does the U.S. trust to have the best intelligence to fight the Islamic State? Syria of course. But as official collaboration is not (yet) allowed, the arrangement is covered up as espionage: U.S. Spying on Syria Yields Bonus: Intelligence on Islamic State:
U.S. Spies Have Been Tapping the Communications of President Bashar al-Assad’s Regime for Information on Islamic State Militants
I am sure that the U.S. could not listen to Syria government communication about IS, and would not make the fact that it can public, if the Syrian (and Russian) government would not want them to.
The U.S. plan was to let some of its "enemies", the Syrians, Iranians, Russians, fight it out with some of its other "enemies", the radical Islamists and by proxy the Saudis and Qataris. All would be weakened and the relative U.S. role in the Middle East would be strengthened. But with the Islamic State blowback in Iraq, in Lebanon and in future likely in further places, the plan to let the enemies destroy each other is increasingly risky.
What we are seeing now, and the Associated Press report above is in my view not just a coincidence, is a slow change in the U.S. position. It is starting to lean towards a more appreciating view towards the Syrian government. How far that change will go is not yet knowable.
My take on the letter Secretary of Defense Hagel sent to the White House is that his demand for a clearer strategy on Syria is not, as Reuters assumes, a request for more help to the insurgents but a request to let go of the animosity towards the Syrian government and to further cooperate with it in the fight against the Islamic State. That is the essence of the RAND study quoted above which Hagel's house paid for. If my reading of it is correct the White House would be wise to follow Hagel's view.