Bombing Assad's forces won't be the end of it. The more you target the chemical weapons the looser the government's control over them will become. You will not destroy them all. You will not destroy half of them. You may make them less available for use by Syrian govt. loyalist forces, and you may make them less attractive to be around for the units who're supposed to be guarding and maintaining them. But that's a short term victory. And even that may be overshadowed by civilian deaths caused by bombardment and the release of chemical agents into the atmosphere. In the long term, though, an even worse possible outcome looms: you will have made the weapons harder to account for and less controllable. The loyalist side will lose control over some of them, and then more of them, as sites are bombed and territory changes hands. Rebels will scavenge bombed sites for intact warheads whenever possible, if only to prevent them from being used on themselves later on. If the bombing campaign is ultimately successful in ousting Assad (and, please, let's have no more childish lies about the real policy goal of the US policy and of its former colonial power allies), the stocks of chemical and maybe biological weapons will be scattered to the four winds. The prominence of Islamic fundamentalist terror groups in the Syrian opposition, including some our government regards as Al Qaeda affiliates, is too well established to need rehashing. Those groups will be racing each other to pick over bombed WMD sites in the localized chaos that follows.
The only way for the western imperialist powers to secure those WMDs to prevent them falling into the hands of religious maniacs is to go in and get them, as they said they were going to do in Iraq. Not even here among the most wild-eyed moronic Obama worshipers will one find many takers for a proposed occupation of Syria. The idea is patently insane. Of course that doesn't mean it won't happen. For our leaders never suffer (as yet) the direct consequences of their stupid and mad ideas. Other people do; first among them will be innocent civilians in the Middle Eastern region. Maybe they will be Syrian Alawites, or Lebanese, or Israelis. And eventually some of them may be innocent civilians of our own country and civilians of countries who assisted us in our "make over" of Syria. It is not necessary for us to even invade Syria and attempt to occupy it to bring down the wrath of Syrian opposition terror groups, now armed with captured chemical weapons maybe, upon our vulnerable fellow citizens abroad. Inevitably after the overthrow of Assad, the US will attempt to aid some group gain control over Syria, if only to exclude other groups whom we like less - which will be the religious fanatic terror groups, who as it happens are more powerful than secular elements on the rebel side, and who are already predisposed to hate us. Right there you have more than enough impetus to turn a temporary ally of convenience into a bitter enemy, determined to strike us even in our "homeland".
= new reply since forum marked as read