It's very rare that I read an article as long as David Penner's without disagreeing with something. Well, I read it, and didn't disagree with one bit of it: "Mass Psychosis and The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism," by David Penner.
Putin has made clear that he thinks Assad made a mistake in not working with the few who started complaining openly. I totally agree with Putin. In fact, when Assad started clamping down, as the terrorists also started showing up, as the snipers also started showing up, as they have over and over and over when the "West" (the CIA) has wanted "regime" change, I wrote openly that Assad has to go. I didn't mean Assad had to go only to be replaced by someone worse or a vacuum for the jihadis but by someone who would not make the fundamental error Assad made. Which was the same error Qaddaffi made, by the way.
Qaddaffi made the fatal error of stating that his forces would go door-to-door and that there would be a bloodbath, blood in the streets. It was like waving a red flag in front of a raging bull (the CIA).
Assad wasn't a bigmouth, though. He quickly became vastly better at explaining what concerned him: that al Qaeda was always right there waiting to take over the "protests." They were, obviously. That hasn't bothered the West, however. In fact, the West back al Qaeda against Assad, which is typical and the reason for David Penner's right-on article.
I also, didn't call for the West to turn to violence. Even when Qaddaffi shot off his mouth, I called for Obama to not use violence but only do humanitarian things.
I did know about "the duty to protect." However, I also knew it would never be applied evenly but only for the sake of the Western/US plutocracy.