The war in Syria is not a civil war. The US has been a party in this war for years by supporting elements in the opposition, providing them with weapons.
Yet, the purpose of the US is NOT a change of regime, as they openly state. That’s also logic, as in case of liberation, you strike hard and fast directly at the goal; you don’t go around supporting certain opposing elements for years and years, making a country into a mess. If there is any sense in the involvement the US had for years, then it was some balancing act, to try to steer the powers in the Middle-East to prevent things getting completely out of hand.
The US lost the balancing act. Using violence over violence over violence inescapably tips the balance.
Coming up with a military strike directly aimed at the Syrian government now, instead of via supporting elements in the opposition, is a desparate act to restore the balance. Yet it’s just as inescapably doomed to fail.
Then what? What can we do to restore the balance?
When a balance is about to tip over, a logical thing to do is to remain silent, to retreat and wait until you can carefully take something OFF the heavy side, instead of adding to it. Why the pressing? What’s the hurry?
The Syrian people have been suffering for years now, because of a war made possible through the support from outsiders. This is the reason for us, the public, to want intervention, as we don’t want our brothers and sisters to suffer from war. This is the reason why we want non-military intervention, humanitarian help, solutions through dialogue.
The US government sees other implications for the Middle-East as a whole, and humanitarian considerations are not their primary focus. But they should admit, they lost the balancing act. And because they lost it, reason should tell governments and citizens alike, military strike is not the solution as it looses on all sides.