Currently there are two options as for who'll be in power: 1. The current leader Bashir Assad or 2. Al Qaeda linked terrorists. The pro western, more secular rebel forces are all but gone now, killed or replaced by the terrorist group.
So the way I see things we don't really have a good option here, not anymore, neither side is one we want to support, but as bad as Assad is what is likely to replace him is worse.
And with the American climate the way it is we do not have the political will to see an extended conflict through to the end, I present Iraq and Afghanistan as case in point.
It seems to me that although the Al-Qaeda linked terrorists have reached an unpleasantly high level of power and influence in Syria ( thanks to the West's refusal to take any action ), the more democratic resistance is not yet finished. Or is it mere wishful thinking on my part ?
Also there is the Syrian population to take into account, which in its great majority is, I believe, opposed both to al-Assad and to the Al-Qaedists. Although it is about powerless in the present circumstances, would they not support a serious Western intervention ?
I have the regret of agreeing with you, however, that the short-sighted and selfish ineptitude both of the Western governments, parliaments and public opinions seems to prevent that taking place in the foreseeable future, bringing more shameful discredit to the West and more suffering to the Syrian people…
regrettably, Russia's stance is to oppose any such intervention in the UN. Putin ( who is currently devlivering more weapons to Bashar al-Assad's army ) appears to think his policy of support to dictatorship and mass murder will make Russia into a world power again…
I wonder whether the UN is not in serious need of a deep structural change - it worked well enough at preventing WWIII and limiting violence for more than 60 years, but the world situation has changed greatly