Obama Administration Considering Military Action in Syria

The Telegraph reports:

Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he has provided President Barack Obama with options for military strikes in Syria, where the civil war has cost at least 93,000 lives.

He told a Senate hearing that under current conditions, he believed Syrian dictator President Bashar Assad would still be in power in a year's time. "Currently the tide seems to have shifted in his favour," he said.

... Gen Dempsey said that Mr Obama had asked him whether the US "could", but not whether it "should", stage a military intervention. The "issue is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government," the general said.

But in a testy exchange with John McCain, the Republican Senator who is a leading advocate for US intervention, he refused to go into further details or give his opinion.
Gen Dempsey has previously expressed scepticism about deploying US force.

You would think, given his background as a POW in Vietnam, that McCain would not be so cavalier about putting troops in harms way...especially, for something so questionable as intervention in Syria.

I'm not even sure what the object of such intervention would be, other than the Administration and its ideological allies, are insistent on regime change. But to what affect? Does anyone seriously believe that replacing Assad will lead to a more stable situation? I think not. In fact, the limited assistance being proposed will most likely only prolong the war. But perhaps that is the strategy: to suck Jihadists into a continual meat grinder.