New ISW Report on Syrian Civil War

The Institute for the Study of War has a new document on likely courses of action for the major players in the Syrian Civil War over the next several months. It's available here. The report and prognostications are interesting, but I disagree with the conclusions as regards ISW's suggestions for American policy. They say that we need "a higher level of aggressive and sustained US leadership," but also that we should "reconsider" our "current threshold for dealing only with 'moderate' rebel allies." I agree with the former, but not the latter.
     It seems the Institute is suggesting that we form a coalition of moderate groups and "powerful Islamist brigades" (excluding ISIS and Nusra, of course) and use that to end the war. To begin with, I don't like the idea of a coalition here. I think it will lead to dangerous divisions, especially if Assad does fall. Furthermore, if Islamists play a prominent role in defeating him, they will certainly demand a prominent role in forming a new government. We will then be left with the choice of giving them what they want or allowing them to grow discontented and form the next Islamic State. It seems to me that we need to be very careful that any new government is not worse than Assad's, and this plan will likely make it worse. If we train and arm the Syrian opposition, we should ensure that it is as unified and moderate as possible.
     They also note that the Kurds are "unable and likely unwilling to project power deeper into the Syrian interior." I don't believe that's correct. As far as I know, the YPG plans to move south toward Raqqa if they are succesful in taking Tel Abyad. And their campaign to unite Jazira and Kobane cantons has been very rapid and efficient so far.