All for amping-up the civil disobedience phase of a revolution before more social meltdown and a slow, ugly decline. Larry Wilkerson's perspective seems the most palatable though, unlikely. Arms embargoes, diplomacy and discussions about details of scenarios that have already been set into motion won't change the push forward into that direction I suspect.
The best form of civil and economic disobedience peeps can flex is through collective boycott/embargo/non-participation in failed or toxic systems. Stop watching television firstly and groom a thinking generation off the teat of their programming. Change the shit-think and the obvious answers appear. Welcome to planet earth it's a dangerous place, don't panic.

I know very little about Syria beyond what is part of the major consensus narrative aka "history". But it's an interesting discussion to have, so my vote goes to "horrible idea", and here's why.

It's a civil war between bad guys on one side and bad guys on the other side, with civilians, as always, caught right in the middle of this meatgrinder. Foreign supporters of both sides keep adding fuel in the form of cash, weapons, training and personnel, all for their own geopolitical gains, of course. Nobody truly gives a fuck about the population, never has.

If any action is supposed to to be carried out for the benefit of the local population, the refugees and regional stability, I'd say two basic questions need to be answered first:

1) What's the situation?
2) What actions by exterior forces can improve this situation?

Judging by most articles these days, the modus operandi instead seems to be based on two entirely different questions: what actions would benefit our geopolitical/economical situation and what should this conflict's narrative look like to support our intentions.

If you look at all the major players involved, it seems clear to me to be a "stay-the-fuck-outta-this" situation.

US, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Emirates vs Syria, Russia and Iran. Egypt and Lebanon are "involved" on both sides -- Muslim Brotherhood and Lebanese Sunnis against Assad, General Sisi (neutral?) and Lebanese Shia pro Assad. Not to mention Al Qaeda against Assad and Hezbollah pro Assad.

Anytime the US finds itself on the same team as Al Qaeda, the situation needs to be reevaluated. And don't even get me started on those barbarians that cut off people's heads and eat their hearts in front of cameras.

And what's the primary geopolitical angle here? To cut the connection between Iran and the Lebanese Shia (Hezbollah)? I figure if they get isolated, they might lash out - violently. And those guys are much more capable than the rabble that makes up significant parts of the Syrian insurrection.

Once the Alawites and Shia in Syria get chopped up by those "rebels" after Assad was removed, things will get ugly real fast.

My suggestion: stop treating Iran like a pariah and start talking. Their regime might be a disaster, but the Persian people are well educated and much closer to our Western way of life than anyone else in that region. Get them, the Russians and the Chinese involved.

Then again, that's the White Man trying to solve the Brown Man's problems from the outside -- has that ever worked? Besides, it would reduce the threat of terrorism and war -- that's bad for business.

So let's talk about Syria why donchas?!

this is such a multi-faceted issue and soo many pieces on the board.
we can use history as a guide but history is nothing like math i.e:2+2=4 always.
people can read the same historical text and come to a different conclusion.

so i use a basic meter that helps me navigate difficult and complex situations.
1.governments lie
2.cue bono-who benefits
3.watch corporate media to taste the direction the government is pushing for i.e:propaganda
4.watch independent news to get a flavor of whats actually happening and possible solutions.

i am still sifting through the information but there are emerging more and more troubling aspects to this conflict.

what bothers me even more is how many people i know are totally ok with military aggression.
my facebook page was alight with my right wing friends (mostly HIGHLY educated) chastising obama for "allowing" congress to decide.

never ONCE questioning the fact that the president never HAD that power to use military force without congressional approval until addington and woo came along and started rewriting the executive powers charter.

if we are going to use history as a template,then it would behoove the powers that be in this country to tread lightly.

well look at my optimism showing!
thats not going to happen.
i read a book years ago and i have been watching the details unfold in real time over the past 15 yrs.

i suggest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

this book laid out the reasons for a destabilized arab spring.

wish i could be more optimistic but governments lie.

It's all about the gas.

That article you linked closes with a near-future scenario of the earth as a, "barely habitable scene of desolation"- Pause if you all will to consider how fortunate we all are to have had this incarnation when we did, in these the best and worst of times-Thank god for indoor plumbing, climate control, and access to way more spice than our smelly, culinarily-challenged forefathers, until it all implodes.