Thousands of Syrian have died since the start of civil unrest in March. Activists are screaming for the international community to intervene.
While some nations are drafting methods to assist Assad's opponents, others are tip-toeing around the idea of getting involved. But why the political evasive maneuver?
Western intervention has always carried a horrible consequence. A few examples are Iraq and Libya. Since the fall of Saddam, there has been more sectarian violence in Iraq. These attacks predominantly target Shia. A much more relevant case, is Libya. Since the death of Col. Mummar Gaddafi, many have been killed and injured as rockets, mortars and gunfire continue between ethnic militia rivals.
Other nations are still trying to figure out the suspicious math: why has the protest develop to a violent uprising so fast? There are already political ambiguity. For example, Assad's opponents are defected military officers and soldiers who have somewhat hijacked the people's revolution. To many leaders, this smells like a dangerously crafted coup.
The consequence of intervention in Syria is unpredictable. Like the process of many Arab-Spring, the Syrian uprising will evolve inexplicably. In the meantime, there will be no change after Assad. The problem is not Assad; the problem is the lack of a philosophical and social revolution which is like an enigmatic enemy.