My solution to the Syrian blood bath

[Mr. Morden]

I was mildly pro-intervention in Libya, but Syria is a heck of a lot more complicated.

For one, you don't have the sort of situation as in Libya, where there are clear boundaries between government and rebel held territory, which are largely separated by hundreds of miles of desert.  That's the sort of situation where intervention from the air is likely to make a big difference.  If the government forces are mixed in with the rebels like in Syria, then it's much messier.

For two, there seems to be a much stronger sectarian element to the war in Syria than there was in Egypt, Libya, or Tunisia.  Much harder for people to defect to the opposition en masse when they're of a different ethnic or religious sect.

My guess is that Assad is toast in the long run with or without Western intervention, but that what follows is years of sectarian bloodbath, a la Iraq 2005-2007 or so.

[Mr. Morden]

I guess I'm just saying we shouldn't just say "meh, it will be hard and we might not get the results that we want so lets not even consider doing something".

I don't think people are trying to shut down debate here.  I'm open to "considering" doing anything.  (Not that anything considerations made on an internet messageboard like this are going to amount to anything in the real world anyway.)  I just expressed skepticism that this was the sort of situation in which an airpower only mission would be able to produce a desirable outcome.  The Libya situation had several unique things going for it in terms of airpower being effective, and even that still took six months before victory was achieved!  But I'm not an expert on this, so I'm open to being persuaded if there are good arguments on this.