It seems pretty clear that any military action that the US (or the international community at-large) takes toward Syria will be entirely about upholding the taboo against using chemical weapons.
Assuming it's done right, that seems like an meritorious goal to me, but I'm not sure why both supporters and detractors are casting this as if it were some kind of humanitarian intervention when the real goal is maintaining international norms. Almost no one is talking about getting entangled in a real attempt to end the carnage in Syria; this is just about signalling that people ought to stick to killing each other with bombs and bullets.
I just don't see how we can do this without there being at least
some collateral damage involved. Bombing Syria, for whatever reason, isn't going to make full-out war with them any less likely no matter who's authorizing it. As for the intended goal, I haven't heard Obama or anyone in his administration say if the bombing is for humanitarian purposes or not, but many on CNN have speculated that such a bombing would be for those reasons. I... don't have much reliable information on that, unfortunately.
Should there be consequences? Yes, probably. But the implications need to be considered, as well.
