If the answer is no, why did she repeat the same mistakes we made in Iraq in Libya — overthrow a foreign, sovereign, government with absolutely no exit strategy which then allowed for the country’s complete collapse into chaos?
If the answer is no, why after the failed Iraq and Libya invasions (two conflicts we are now re-engaged with), would she believe ignoring Assad would actually hurt the fight against ISIS? While I understand her point, there is absolutely no historical, or present evidence that this is the appropriate approach.
A civil war is the most fundamental and brutal attempt to answer the question of who exercises the monopoly on the control of violence that underwrites the power of the state. Artificially inflating the power of one favored but weaker faction to seize control of the state invites later challenges to this power in the not too distant future. Unless an indefinite guarantee of military support for the weaker faction is offered, that weaker faction (no matter how enlightened) cannot realistically be expected to maintain control over the state. The utter lawlessness in many regions of Libya today is the most recent example of what happens when outside powers back weak forces they deem to be on the right side of history in a civil war.
Worst of all, is the conflict our presence in Syria has caused with Russia. They told us not to intervene with one of their allies, but we did it anyway. But to make matters worse, Hillary and the Democrats have been using increasingly inflammatory, completely unsubstantiated rhetoric against Russia, in order to deflect the hear away from the email leaks. This is dangerous. This is undiplomatic. This is idiotic. I am extremely worried of what the future holds with Hillary as commander in chief.