Eight things to consider before intervening in Syria.
1. What are the goals of intervention?
All statements coming from the western leaders most likely to undertake military action (US, UK and France) suggest a narrow focus on chemical weapons (CW), rather than action designed to sway the overall trajectory of the conflict in Syria. PM Cameron went as far as to say, this is not even about the Syria conflict. It is about the use of chemical weapons. On the overall conflict, all continue to suggest that ultimately a political outcome is needed.
Beyond a perceived sense of the need to do something, the intention seems to be to send a signal on CW to deter further use in the Syria arena and reinforce a global norm alongside an apparent goal of restoring western credibility. Washington in particular seems to have become convinced that non-action on its own red line would imply a presidency that has replaced gung-ho with gun-shy to an extent that might undermine global assessments of American willingness to deploy hard power as well as generating criticism from inside the DC bubble.
http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/commentary_eight_things_to_consider_before_intervening_in_syria