We are going to support someone in the conflict and the FSA is the most moderate of the available groups. Unless of course we want to start supporting Kurdish rule over the entire region, which is... unlikely. If not, then we are stuck with what we got.
It runs the risk of a proxy war with Russia but if Assad is to be removed then we will provide them more info and firepower alongside "other" support.
What the US is currently doing is a huge convoluted, incomprehensible, reprehensible mess. It's not our fight and the rebels are loosely connected to ISIS, who are fighting Assad. Is Assad the best option? No, and neither was Saddam. However, removing Saddam has shown to also not have been a good thing. The very fact we are aiding people who are loosely connected to the people we are fighting, and the people we are helping are fighting the people who are also attacking ISIS makes no god darn sense. It's like Germany fighting Iran and ISIS when Iran is also fighting ISIS. You can't be allies and enemies at the same time.
Simple response here....if things are bad in your country, there is a firm divide of population, etc., the citizens of the nation need to stand up and wage civil war in order to balance their nation for the safety of their homes. How many thousands of years have residents of the Middle East region fought each other? How is it even remotely possible for a civil war to continue on for THOUSANDS of years with no victor or significant strides? Seems to me as though the fighting in the region is strictly tied to the population's unquenchable thirst for violence, murder, bloodshed, and war instead of the state of the region. Let the cavemen fight among themselves; don't get bogged down in their childish nonsense.