The perilous drift to intervention in Syria

"The calls for “something to be done” about Syria are getting louder in the US and Europe – so loud that they may soon be heeded. The first step, which could come fairly quickly, would be to supply the Syrian opposition with weapons. The second, which is under active consideration, would be to establish a no-fly zone.

About 40,000 people have already died in a conflict that Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary-general, says is reaching “new and appalling levels of brutality”. A few days ago, the Assad regime bombed a hospital in Aleppo, causing many deaths. Yet, before the west helps the rebels with weapons or air strikes, key questions remain to be answered. Above all, would intervention bring the conflict to an end? Or might it simply move the war into a new phase– in which the Americans and Europeans would now be directly involved?"

I can't be bothered to sign in to the FT to read the rest of this, but from the start, the whole thing seems way behind the curve as the opposition has been taking the weapons for itself that the West has failed to supply. But we may have to wait a little longer for Assad's supporters to join the reality-based community.