A Western Military Intervention in Syria = Support for the Muslim Brotherhood & its Various Offshoots

Syria & Use of Chemical Weapons: 

The ongoing debate in the West (whether chemical weapons were used & who used them?) to determine some sort of intervention/response from the West (US & UK govts primarily gunning for action against the Assad regime) is dangerously short sighted on so many levels, and reflects a lack of nuance and long term strategic thinking on the outcome (thanks to some sort of initial limited military response) which will, in all likelihood, lead to the deaths of more Syrian civilians caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. And, destabilize the Levant and beyond.

If the Assad regime collapses, the blood bath of Christians, Kurds, Alawites and secular Sunnis will be extensive. Not to mention the likely spillover effect for Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. States that can't afford such a state of affairs next door. In short, removal of Assad's regime (however brutal and corrupt) will only ensure either the end of the Syrian state and/or a civil war reminiscent of Lebanon's (1975-1990).

Does the Assad regime have a precedent (on using chemical weapons)? Yes, Hafiz Assad, the father, did indeed resort to use of chemical weapons in the tunnels of Hama in '82. The details of what happened in Hama (the Syrian MB headquarters) during those two weeks are far more gruesome than reported by Amnesty International. Around 45,000 were killed and Hama's downtown was left in rubble. At that time the Syrian MB, emboldened by Sadat's successful assassination by their Egyptian Brothers in Cairo in '81, were resorting to vicious tactics across Syria and even Damascus was under siege. The MB's brutal assaults (civilians, military family quarters etc etc) on civil society necessitated stringent/violent counter measures, although one can never condone the use of chemical weapons for any reason. No foreign leaders outside Syria batted an eye and some called it "an internal affair." 

The reality is that the Hama offensive basically eliminated the  MB menace from Syria for almost three decades...until they reemerged thanks to the "Arab Spring."

By launching missiles upon Syrian targets we would, in effect, be announcing to the Syrian people and beyond, that we (US/UK et al) stand by the MB and their political/religious ethos (just read Banna, Qutb to comprehend the depths of their contempt and hate for Western Civilization) and for what they designate as "jahilliyah" near enemy.

In short, our foreign policy vis-a-vis Egypt and Syria announces to Jordan, Morocco, UAE, Kuwait, Algeria, Yemen, Oman and Saudi Arabia that we support those very virulent elements who seek the demise of their own governments/regimes. 

Saudi Arabia is a dangerous wild card. Trying to play all sides for keeps. Putin, to his credit, didn't sell out. After all, as much as the Saudis claim to despise the Ikhwan al Muslimin, aka Muslim Brothers/MB, they are terrified of them; thus, for decades, they have been financially supporting (especially in the West) MB fronts and organizations to do their dirty work. Why? Because their respective core ideologies are not really indistinguishable and they hoped to keep MB mischief makers from instigating an internal effort to overthrow the House of Saud whom the MB despises as "jahiliyyah." 

Saudi Arabia's balancing act, however, is like a house of cards in the long run. They are only buying time in a rather short sighted manner rather than undertaking a serious --internal--examination of their own domestic situation and their destructive foreign policy approaches which tend to blowback on them.

When Saddam Hussein used mustard and sarin gas against Iranian forces and his own Kurdish populace in Halabja in the 1980s (which BTW killed tens of thousands, not 100s) the West didn't bat an eye. In fact, US support for Saddam bordered on the irrational vis-a-vis US national security interests even after the USS Stark attack in '87. This US approach led to Saddam's Rumaila Oilfield grab, starting with the slant drilling which, rightly, upset and alarmed the Kuwaitis. Bashar Assad, however, doesn't pose such a threat despite his meddling in Lebanon. 

The US has been sucked into the affairs of the Middle East/Muslim world and this has only profited a few special interests at the expense of the American people. Now that our economy is in dire straits, such global misadventures should be curtailed not expanded. 

Our Founding Fathers never envisioned any such interventionist doctrine like the "Responsibility to Protect" every other nation at the expense of our national interests. Jefferson's prescient words still resonate:"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none." 

Articles which offer some perspective:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-26-kurdish-pyd-leader-assad-is-not-to-blame

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-kurdish-leader-doubts-assad-stupid-carry-gas-145739712.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23777201

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/syria-assad-warns-failure-us-intervention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B0AWwcOQ7I&feature=share

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/08/25/russia-warns-u-s-over-syria-says-obama-like-bush/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800