I am with you on limited use. I believe the military can be used as to offer both a carrot and a stick, but I fear the American mindset is similar to how I interrupted your quote and how you interpreted my response - it is all or nothing.

On a separate note:

This situation is far more complicated than we simple American's, with our "shot-out" mentality to solutions, are capable of understanding. What "may" have started as a democratic revolt has clearly morphed into something different with multiple societal and political cleavages feeding the fire. The opposition cannot agree on a government in abstentia and the Muslim Brotherhood are changing the narrative to a ethnic/sectarian fight, one more apt to gain ground in a middle east where conflicts are fueled by identity not ideology.

Whether we should get involved is a question of national interest. Since it is doubtful that one could argue that intervention on the side of the insurgents is justified as a means of spreading democracy, I doubt that we could continue to justify our actions as part of a plan to remove a dictatorial leader since whomever comes to power next will probably be no better, and potentially far worse. Whether national interest now includes humanitarian intervention is part of a broader question of whether humanitarian intervention is justified at all. Security interests seem to be primarily around what will happen to the chemical weapons should a terrorist affiliated group ultimately end up in power, or at least in control of some of those weapons. The Israeli solution may be our best choice. I just don't want the US to believe that limited air strikes must inevitably lead to a full scale invasion and occupation or that under the right circumstance the US could not be part of a broader peacekeeping mission in the former country of Syria.