Righteous Avengers, if the Syrian "intervention" escalates into a full blown conflict

[whatchamacallit]

what are the chances we'd ultimately kill many more people than the accused? Would it matter? Please make sure to wipe the foam from your mouth so we can understand your answer.

[Scootaloo]

1. Our intervention will get one of three results

1) Utter ineffectiveness. Think "missile strikes at a Sudanese aspirin factory." Congratulations on wasting a billion and a half taxpayer dollars there, guys!

2) "Successful," but exacerbate chaos - by "taking out" the Assad regime, or its military capabilities, we give reprieve to the insurgency, and prolong the civil war and further the Syrian death spiral. We decide to not intervene further, and just pat ourselves on the back for helping slaughter a few hundred thousand more people.

3) "Successful," but bogged down. Like #2 we "take out" the targets we're going after, but rather than allow the chaos to unfold, we send in ground and air forces to try to gain control. Pundits are bewildered as we aren't showered with candy and flowers, while the Administration spends the next three years trying to find a "corner" that we're about to "turn."

[msongs]

2. or 4) totally unitended consequences (other than recruiting for al queda yet again) nt

[Scootaloo]

3. Oh, that comes with all three

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was speaking purely on whether we could "accomplish the task" and what our future involvement might be. But yeah, any action we take is going to have blowback for us and our allies.