No one is denying it's messy. No one is promising an easy solution. But I'm wondering at some of the statements and assumptions in your post.
I don't think there have been "chemical attacks for months". There have been two probable attacks and only one - the latest - has been open for verification by the UN. Even with verification it is going to difficult politically for the western powers to launch a military strike against Assad. Can you imagine how more difficult it would be if the idea had been mooted after the earlier attack when the UN was in no position to investigate? There's no need to be "cynical" about this. You just need to be realistic.
I didn't realise that there were voices in our military - and the US one - saying that an air-strike, or cruise missile strike, against Assad would be "nuts" - let alone that they were saying this "very loudly". Is that true? But, of course, the western governments will consult their military commanders and if their advice is anything like you're saying it is then it's doubtful we'll proceed. One of the cornerstones of 'Responsibility to Protect' is the idea that any intervention has to be practical and likely to succeed.
You're concerned about Russian and Iranian soldiers who might get killed in any air-strike. Here I disagree. They shouldn't be there. They have no mandate. If they are there - and I'm certain Iranian troops are indeed fighting to buttress Assad - then they have not been declared. Tough shit if they get killed.
Finally you call the Syrian crisis in which over 100,000 people have died and a massive proportion of the population are now refugees as "this little religious/civil war". I'm curious. How many casualties would there need to be before you called it a big war?
There's an obvious sarcasm about labelling a major regional conflict which has lasted two years and killed 100,000 people 'little'. Not like you to miss out on that yorky. You usually only do that when you disagree with someone... oh wait...
The UN inspection team sent to Syria identified 3 sites where evidence may have remained of chemical weapons attacks. There are a number where the possibility of establishing whether one took place one way or the other is now lost. In fact, that report from the Washington Times quoted is from early May. It's now late August. There are possible mitigating reasons behind why 'now', but at the same time this is a war which has been going on for 2 years. The use of chemical weapons has been alleged on both sides for a long time, and we've never been particularly keen to begin military action on this basis before. What exactly are the positive benefits of dropping some TNT on the Assad regime right now? Do you think it will stop him doing it again? Really?
As for military opinion, you could try General Lord Dannatt from this side of the Atlantic or General Martin Dempsey from the other. Both have warned on the unintended consequences of even missile attacks. Lord West has spoken up too on the dangers of throwing a stick of dynamite into a powder keg. As we're playing anal deconstruction of posts, please note that military voices here who can speak out publicly do not include serving officers. I'm sure you're aware of that but you may not be.
Unless you're arguing that we should not treat Assad regime as the legitimate government of Syria, which is a lovely tin of worms to open, then, sorry, but the Syrian government can invite whoever it likes across its borders. Whether we like it or not, killing some Russians or Iranians is bad mojo. It's very big and ballsy to say 'tough shit', foolhardy is probably the word invented for that kind of attitude. You'd kind of hope our leaders aren't that dumb.
