[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

The difference is Syria is essentially Iraq. In the 1990s we had a no-fly zon over Iraq and bombed and strafed many Iraqis. However, we did not invade Iraq or pursue occupation. This was for good reason. In 1990 Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world. That means that by proportion to their population, Iraq as a heavily militarized society. Everybody was a veteran, everybody had military or combat experience. In the 1990s people used to ask why the US didn't invade Iraq and "finish the job" with Saddam, after 2003 we don't ask that question. The Pandora's Box powder keg that is Iraq is what the US was avoiding in the 1990s, and what we are avoiding in Syria today. There is no difference between mass murder by conventional weapons, and mass murder by chemical weapons aside from internationally such lines have been recognizably drawn. Besides of which, much like in Libya, who are these rebels? Are they really freedom fighters or another version of the Contras? The dirty not-so-secret is that Libya is in shambles, and we didn't necessarily do any good there. In Syria, it will be the same scenario. Further, Syria could be the tipping point that sparks international war with Iran. And if Russia decides its worth it? All of this translates into more and more dying Syrians.