This is Michael Fallon, Britian’s Defense Secretary, speaking to parliament this week:
In Syria the position is much more complicated and we are concerned at some of the more recent reports that may suggest coordination between Syrian democratic forces and the Assad regime, which is not helpful to the long-term aim of defeating Daesh. 
What he means is that the co-ordination between ‘Syrian democratic forces’ and Assad weakens the long-term aim of defeating Assad. Because 2 against one is obviously better than 1 against 1 such co-ordination is more likely to lead to the ‘defeat’ of ISIS. So – to make the above more truthful just replace the word ‘Daesh’ with the word ‘Assad’.
What they are trying to cover up is that their pursuit of the aim of overthrowing the ‘Assad regime’ means, in effect, that they are allied with ISIS. The ‘democratic opposition’ is supposed to defeat Assad for them. An alliance between the ‘democratic opposition’ and Assad is a disaster for this policy. That is more of a problem for them than the fact that such an alliance creates the best possibility for defeating ISIS.
Was this a blundering mistake by Michael Fallow or a carefully contrived lie put together by whoever wrote the text? In this case probably the latter.
There is another carefully contrived lie in the above. There are no, or precious few, ‘Syrian democratic forces’ on the ground in Syria. Opposition to Assad tends to be based more on religious and ethnic grounds – not a preference for ‘democracy’. He may be referring to the ‘Syrian Democratic Forces alliance’. This is a recently assembled grouping based in Northern Syria. Kurds are especially strong in this group. This group was recently armed by the US to fight ISIS – apparently.  By turning the name of the alliance into a general descriptive term the speech writer is trying to promote the idea that there is a ‘democratic opposition’ to Assad.
These people are gangsters responsible for untold human suffering in Syria. They cover this all up with lie after lie. Lies which are rarely called into question by the ‘free press’ in the West.