Regional security councils would thus have the power to act. It would also mirror the UN Security Council by having broad membership. The UNSC which would have to approve any actionable decisions by the Regionals. But the Regionals themselves would be composed of countries with equal representation in that forum. No country would have veto power.

I feel that these regional councils could work as pressure release valves, and better reflect the local interests, but wonder if the UNSC members with veto power wouldn't apply pressure to all actionable decisions to such an extent that the regionals simply became proxies, with the possibility that the intentions of permanent UNSC members could be masked behind appointed players.

I was reading today about pledges for Syrian refugees. I wonder if there is a way to help non-combatants in a way that steals energy from the conflict. For example, what would be the effect of refugee camps/zones, heavily guarded by international forces, that strictly only admitted woman and children?

The notion that "it was Iraq that set the stage for the current events in Syria" seems far too glib in its willingness to dismiss the last century (at least) of Middle East history. Which is not to say that Iraq wasn't just one more example of a disastrous and misguided Western intervention in that history.

But the deeper flaw with this analysis, I think, lies in its failure to acknowledge the economic, demographic, social, political and religious forces that nurture oppressive regimes in the Middle East in the first place. And those, in turn are at the root of "revolutions" and civil wars.

It seems unlikely to me that a regional security council -- made up of entities that are preoccupied with their own bounty of internal problems and injustices -- are in a very good position to mount constructive interventions. They would, however, be in an ideal position to prolong a conflict and maximize the blood-letting.

One option that is (in my view critically) missing here is: strict, consistent NONintervention in civil wars. Over time, this would moderate what seems to have become the expectation that a third party will step in and somehow magically resolve ancient problems and hatreds.

Some conflicts are simply beyond our understanding, much less our ability to end. A hundred years after the Great War, we are still mystified by how and why it happened. We have not become wiser since 1914.

Let's recognize that sometimes the best we can do is aid the displaced, provide a venue to allow belligerent parties to negotiate for themselves once they have exhausted their will to war, and do what we can to contain their war until it burns itself out.