With more than 100, 000 dead.
With 2 million refugees
With 5 million internally displaced.
With more evidence being presented of the use of chemical weapons [France and the USA]
The UN report is still pending.
What are the options
One is to strike now but the outcome is less than certain
There are three main strategic objectives an aerial intervention in Syria could include:The bolding is mine.
limiting or containing the conflict
changing the course of the war.
In pursuit of these strategic objectives, there are five principal missions the U.S. and partner air forces might be called on to carry out, each of which would present certain challenges and benefits.
Destroying the Syrian air force or grounding it through intimidation is operationally feasible but would have only marginal benefits for protecting Syrian civilians.
Neutralizing the Syrian air defense system would be challenging but manageable; however, it would not be an end in itself.
Making safe areas in Syria reasonably secure would depend primarily on the presence of ground forces able and willing to fend off attacks, and defending safe areas in Syria's interior would resemble intervention on the side of the opposition.
An air campaign against the Syrian army could do more to help ensure the Assad regime would fall than to determine what would replace it.
Airpower could be used to reduce the Assad regime's ability or desire to launch large-scale chemical attacks, but eliminating its chemical weapon arsenal would require a large ground operation.
So any air strike would be punitive rather than curative without ground troops. Just who would die is another question with so much chaos already on the ground.
The second option is for a both air and ground operations but who would be willing to proceed down this route, again.
The third option is to try and contain the chaos and let the civil war run its course.
The final option
Is to wait for all the evidence to be presented, to try and move both China and Russia to "our" side of the divide and to put pressure on all parties to come to the table and negotiate; at first a cease fire then a stabilization of the country.
If a case for war crimes can be made then those accused of such crimes should have a fair trial.
Personally I cannot see the point in just adding to the carnage.
I have real concerns about aiding some of the opposition groups who have committed atrocities themselves.
I can only see a diplomatic solution bringing an eventual end to the pain and death.
I know the use of military power is wanted by quite a few, but from the attached report it would take boots on the ground and another American adventure would only inflame the region further.
No matter how hardhearted it may seem to some the only hope is for a negotiated peace, bombing someone/something just to satisfy our own conscience by punishing the wicked seems of scant solace and pointless.
If the only object is to bring down the regime as fast as possible, bomb away; the result however will be anyone's guess.