The correct reason not to intervene in Syria [View all]

[Benton D Struckcheon]

At least not to the extent it knocks off Assad:

In 1970, then Air Force General, Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite, took power and instigated a "Correctionist Movement" in the Ba'ath Party. The coup of 1970 ended the political instability that had lasted since the arrival of independence.[35] Robert D. Kaplan has compared Hafez al-Assad's coming to power to "an untouchable becoming maharajah in India or a Jew becoming tsar in Russia—an unprecedented development shocking to the Sunni majority population which had monopolized power for so many centuries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawites

The problem is, as soon as the rebels win, the massacres of Alawites will start. In the ME, the Sunni population has been whipped into a frenzy from the pics of what Assad has done to them. Revenge will be the very first thing on their mind. Do we really want to be the ones who open the door to that sort of slaughter?
So, I really do hope the strikes are just a pinprick. The balance of power there needs to be maintained just to keep the lid from blowing completely off. The real work needs to be done with Russia and Iran via diplomacy, to get Assad to the table and then do the super hard work of figuring out how to get Syria to a point where everyone can live, if not with each other, then at least next to each other without anything more than an occasional village massacre. Things could get a lot worse than that. A lot worse. Letting Russia have its client in the Arab ME is worth avoiding the hell that awaits if the balance is tipped too far towards the rebels.