Or bomb government forces. Do both if possible. This seems to be the US new foreign policy - but only for selected countries. Most of the world's countries in or on the brink of civil war we couldn't care less about; we seem to make an exception for Middle Eastern countries, Syria being only the latest.

I don't know or care what the issues are in Syria and this is what I do with articles about it TL;DR. Apparently, the younger Assad has pissed off the US and we're going to take him out, like we did with Kaddafy in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt. Our state department is ticked that Russia and China don't want to go along with our plan to further destabilize and lay waste to yet another small country in the Middle East.

Let's try an analogy - newish country having economic problems exacerbated by factional policies divided along North/South boundary. President compounds the problem by passing laws inimical to the Southern faction, causing tension to flare into armed conflict. Rebellious areas attempt to establish independent control, resist invasion by government forces. President begins slaughter of his own citizens and abrogates established constitutional law, going so far as to throw members of his own cabinet in jail.

If this were a Middle Eastern country in which the government forces have the clear military advantage, the US would want to intervene to keep this tyrant in check. Arm those rebels, bomb the Northern faction. Amiright? I just described the US Civil War. Lincoln is the president.

No I'm not comparing the issues of the US Civil War to Syria. I'm comparing the potential of foreign intervention. Yah there was some foreign assistance in our Civil War but not enough to make a dent. But with modern US firepower, sanctions, etc. we make a huge difference. But really, it's none of our business.

One thing is very clear - every time we take down a secular government in the Middle East, we help bring about a religious government. Is this really a good idea?