Assad: We'll give up chemical weapons once U.S. stops arming rebels

[orenbus]

84. American exceptionalism should not be code for lethal force

There is a difference between "helping a country have elections" whatever that means, and arming and training opposition forces in a civil war to bring about specific goals that may have murky results at best. It would be one thing if we had a decent track record involving ourselves through covert actions or militarily in other countries for the betterment of a people outside our own country in the middle east, however take a look at our CIA (now declassified) involvement in overthrowing a elected leader of Iran in 1953 Coup, simply because we did not like the leader's policies as it pertained to how Iran was going to manage their own country's resources:

"Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

I'm not going to go through the whole history of the region and what impacts this and other actions we have had and the blowback that surely has come after as defined by our own CIA, but suffice to say our history in the region is not a good indication of constructive contributions we can bring about in the future through our actions using lethal force or supporting such force.