Here’s the conclusion of Patricia Sullivan’s RealClearDefense article on whether it’s ever a good idea to arm violent nonstate actors:
My own research suggests that the arms and ammunition supplied to a combatant in wartime can perpetuate a state of insecurity in the region long after the war has officially ended. A recent study concludes that security force assistance can achieve some limited goals, but only if states make aid conditional and intrusively monitor recipients. The reality is the conditions under which the U.S. trains, equips and advises armed opposition groups are seldom conducive to either.
Arming violent nonstate actors is bad policy, illegal, and immoral. The question of whether we should do it practically answers itself. No. It’s a cowardly alternative to taking the political heat for letting bad things happen through U. S. inaction.
Bad things will happen. If you wish to heal the world, do it as a private citizen.
