I don't know where you're getting the "10% of the FSA is allied with AQ...". The Al-Nusra Front is a separate entity from the FSA, but they are allies. What we're seeing is al-Nusra and other jihadist groups like the Muhajireen Brigade or Ghuraba al-Sham working together alongside the FSA. For more information on al-Nusra, [url=http://longfightahead.blogspot.com/2013/02/al-nusra-front.html]here's[/url] my blog post on it. Now, the problem of us arming Syrian rebels is obviously the fear that these weapons fall into the hands of members of organizations like al-Nusra. However, much like various American officials, I support arming Syrian rebels. Not al-Nusra, not any of their jihadist allies, not Kurdish fighters, but a rebel group. The Syrian National Coalition is where you'd have to look at for a group suitable to obtain weapons from us. A secular, democratic group(s) would have to be the one(s) who gets our funding. The problem here would be making sure they are the victorious group. By victorious group, I mean when Assad falls and all these opposition groups fight for power. In all honesty, I'm betting one of two things is gonna happen. One: Coalitions of different groups fight each other for power, much like how Afghanistan was post-Soviet withdrawal; or, two: A legitimate government comes into place, but groups such as al-Nusra try to undermine them. Either way, a major point to funding a group is making sure they're victorious. [quote]The other decision (instead of isolating ourselves from the whole issue) is to just burst the bubble of war and let it all out. US bombs Syria, Iran bombs Israel, cluster-blam!- ensues with China and Russia's stance being put on the spotlight. None of which sounds fun.[/quote]I'm willing to bet that the US doesn't get involved unless the UN finally passes a resolution. Being that Russia has vetoed three so far, I doubt that's going to happen. But, with Russian support waning, I could be wrong. Now, we could still get involved militarily, just covertly; as in sending in CIA, special operations forces, etc. This would go back to the funding of the rebel group(s) that match our ideals. The weapons would be going to this group, and the US assets such as the aforementioned groups, would be alongside the group as advisers or even involved in the fighting. This helps both the rebel group be more victorious and it could potentially help track where the weapons go. I am also in favor of this move, as well. The fact of the matter is, the chances for a diplomatic end to this is deteriorating. The longer this goes on, the worse it becomes. As for the al-Nusra Front and other jihadist groups affiliated with al-Qaeda (or for the case of al-Nusra, [i]are[/i] al-Qaeda) the longer this conflict goes on, the stronger they get. Something has to happen, but it's a complex situation. EDIT: Wow. Both my opinions and several "facts" I pointed out here have changed. Very interesting how the dynamics of a conflict changes so rapidly.