That was an interesting read. As the crisis in Syria has escalated I have been more and more in favor of Western intervention, but I think going in militarily would be absolutely disastrous. The power vacuum would be incredibly unpredictable and there are just too many players involved, with all of the factions within Syria and all of the nation states that are on the sidelines. Russia and Iran are too invested with the Assad regime and I foresee a tit-for-tat escalation model if we use drones or bombs. Politicians in America who are crying for these types of interventions are nearsighted and only making this situation more dangerous and unpredictable. At this point I think the only responsible Western interventions are what the article suggests. Hugely increasing our humanitarian aid for all Syrian citizens and refugees, and continuing to broadcast the realities within the country, completely unbiasedly, are the only two responsible short-term actions I can think of. Also I think the West, mainly America, France, and the UK, is in a position to attempt to get the Saudis, Qataris, and Iranians to discuss solutions to the crisis.

The number of dead is absolutely staggering, and it will continue to increase, but I do not think that the United States, or the rest of the western world, can make the crisis any less awful by engaging Assad in military action, at least not right now.