Just like Ahmed Chalabi and his neocon backers were rejected by people who had stayed in Iraq while Chalabi hadn't been there for 20 years. (And we know neocons are among the drum-beaters for military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad.)
And, just as Chalabi was a bumbler who fell out of office after our presence became more disliked, it's probably safe to assume that similar would happen in Syria.
Meanwhile most of those 11 other rebel groups have various degrees of Islamicist shading. And, some of them are folks we the bipartisan foreign policy establishment thought were "good guys" and "our guys," at least up to now. Per the story linked at top:
Distancing themselves from the exile opposition’s call for a democratic, civil government to replace Mr. Assad, they called on all military and civilian groups in Syria to “unify in a clear Islamic frame.” Those who signed included three groups aligned with the Western-backed opposition’s Supreme Military Council.Oops.
And, since we can't control Syria's future after Assad leaves, by whatever means, without boots on the ground, which Obamiacs, including friends and acquaintances of mine generally refuse to admit, this is once again why US President Barack Obama needs to be honest about an overall military plan, exit strategy, etc., for any action he might undertake toward Syria, since so far he hasn't crafted one.
As far as the tragedy of deaths, and ABC weapons, we never intervened in North Korea. Why? It's next door to its Chinese patron. Purely as far as deaths, we've never intervened in a place like Zimbabwe, or even encouraged an African-only intervention. Why? Probably because it's landlocked and nowhere near oil.
Syria does not immediately border Russia, but does border lots of oil in a volatile area.
That's still no excuse for intervening without clear strategy and clear exit plan.
However, a Security Council deal, though without military teeth, may help things out.