I doubt that things will ever go back to the way they were. Assad and his allies may well win, but they are likely to be faced with a running insurgency fueled by persistent external support and safe havens over several borders. A clean and decisive "win" by the AQ/Islamist groups is equally unlikely, for many of the same reasons. Extensive killings and displacements are likely outcomes no matter who wins, or if nobody does: ugly truth, but still truth.
True, I should have clarified that more. I doubt Syria will enjoy a relative peace again for decades which is sad, my intent with that poorly worded claim is that a rational state actor would remain in control of Syria that Israel, Jordan, and Turkey could manage more effectively than the alternative.

In my mind there is no doubt that Assad's incompetent response to some disgruntled youth acting out resulted in a war that shouldn't have happened, but it is too late to rewrite history. I suspect he was excessively paranoid based on the Arab Spring events throughout the region and cracked down out of fear. He probably would have been more effective if he followed the King of Morocco's approach.

True on all counts IMO, but there are real-world constraints on US policy posed by domestic and international opinion. For better or worse, the US is expected to follow the dismissal of a dictator with a transition to something that Americans can call "democracy". Installing a compliant general as the new dictator is no longer acceptable. That may not make sense in all cases, but the constraint remains, and has to be built into the exit strategy calculation from the start.
Perhaps, but based on our recent experience our national leadership and our people may be more receptive to other forms of governance. Democracy works for us, but clearly it does not work in some nations. We can always state our ultimate aim is to help that nation evolve into a democracy over the years, but our first goal is enable an appropriate form of government control to prevent a humanitarian disaster.

It's important, I think, to recognize that this is not "about us" and is not (and never was) a case where we are going to control or dictate the outcome. That's not to say we couldn't dictate the outcome, but trying to do so would require a commitment of resources and an acceptance of risks that are totally out of proportion to the US interests at stake.
I have mixed feelings on this, I think this conflict is much larger than Syria, it involves the larger Shia-Sunni conflict taking place in the Muslim world, it also involves local state actors, and state actors beyond the region (principally Russia, China, and the U.S.) It certainly isn't about us, but we do have interests in how this turns out. We did a more job of responding to this also. I suspect Kerry's response would have been more seasoned and practical than Clinton's, but that is only speculation.