I think it unlikely that bombing Syria once would lead to regional war.

[DirkGently]

14. The premise that the U.S. will "fix" Syria with bombs

is the big problem here. We do not actually have the authority to launch military strikes because we claim a war is being conducted incorrectly. That is a premise and a justification, not a reality.

And what comes next? If the strike doesn't turn the tide against Assad, we'll just ... what?

Claim we punished the use of chemical weapons and sit back, satisfied?

And if the rebels begin to win, but carry out the ethnic atrocities that seem inevitable in this war -- we will then "let" that happen?

This entire premise is a fallacy. We cannot shape the Middle East to our liking by waging endless illegal wars in the region. We can kill a lot of people and continue to be seen as a bully, spend endless billions, and exhaust and abuse our military personnel, as we have been doing.

I find it hard to believe that Americans -- even if only a few so far -- actually believe we can and should embark on yet another claimed rescue mission in the ME, to be accomplished by war.

This is not a thing we can do, or should continue to claim the right to attempt.