More than 100,000 people have been killed so far in the civil war in Syria, hundreds in a nerve gas attack in the suburbs of Damascus last Wednesday.

"The chemical weapon attack was meant to show pro-rebel civilians that their disloyalty has a price and that mass murder was part of the punishment," said StrategyPage.

As in the Spanish civil war (1936-39), outside forces provide significant support to the warring factions. Russia and Iran support the regime of dictator Bashir Assad. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar back the rebels.

There is so much foreign involvement in part because of Syria's geostrategic location; in larger part because the Syrian factions are proxies in a worldwide struggle among Islamists for supremacy.

Mr. Assad is an Alawite, an offshoot of Shia Islam, in a country which is 74 percent Sunni. He's been Iran's most valuable ally, provides a critical bridge to the Hezbollah militia the mullahs sponsor in Lebanon.

The rebels are dominated by al Qaida linked groups. Sunni Islamists regard Shias the way Catholics did Protestants during the Thirty Year's War (1618-1648).

The one thing these bitter rivals have in common is enmity toward the United States. No matter who wins, America loses, said Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The best we can hope for is a bloody stalemate.

Mr. Assad is "a pencil-necked murdering swine" who "runs a repressive, minority-ruled, Iranian-backed regime" who, nevertheless, can act rationally and with whom we can deal, said retired Foreign Service Officer W. Lewis Amselem.

It makes no sense to replace him with "lunatic AQ-allied, apocalyptic jihadi fanatics who want a Muslim caliphate or death and will slaughter indiscriminately in pursuit of either goal," he said.

We shouldn't risk the lives of our troops in a conflict between bad and worse, especially since it's unclear which is "bad," and which is "worse," most Americans think. Only 9 percent of respondents favored military intervention in a Reuters-Ipsos poll last week.

But because President Barack Obama drew a "red line" last year about the use of chemical weapons, politicians in both parties say his prestige -- and America's -- will suffer if he doesn't attack.

"In terms of the credibility of the White House, the cost of not acting now I think exceeds the cost of acting," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-NY, who'd been an opponent of military intervention.

What's being contemplated are "surgical" strikes like those in the undeclared war with Libya, likely by cruise missiles launched from U.S. and British warships, said Mark Thompson of Time Magazine.

A missile strike would be "a barrage designed to punish Assad for using chemical weapons -- but of insufficient magnitude or duration to force him from power," he wrote. "That would let Obama say he has punished the Syrian strongman without committing the U.S. military to a long-term conflict."

In other words, what American Interest editor Walter Russell Mead calls "a moralistic spasm--dropping a few bombs to demonstrate to the world how righteous we are."

To assume we can end a war we start whenever we like, and control the level of violence throughout is dangerous nonsense.

"The enemy has a vote," said legendary Marine General James Mattis. "No war is over until the enemy says it's over."

Syria and Russia have threatened consequences if the U.S. attacks.

Air power, like modern courtship, "appears to offer gratification without commitment," said Eliot Cohen, who directed the Air Force's survey of the effectiveness of the bombing in the first Gulf War. That appearance is deceiving.

"The Clinton administration's course, a futile salvo of cruise missiles, followed by self congratulation and an attempt to change the topic will not work here," Mr. Cohen said.

"If Obama does a Clinton and churns up some sand with do-nothing cruise-missile strikes, it will only encourage the Assad regime," said retired Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters. "But if our president hits Assad hard and precipitates regime change, then what?"

If military action causes the regime to fall, Mr. Assad will be replaced by "extremist jihadi psychopaths" who would be worse, Mr. Amselem said. And if we "just wound the bear, what's left of our reputation is gone, and we will have one bloody-minded, revenge seeking pencil-necked dictator--backed by Iran and Russia--gunning for us and our interests."

Jack Kelly writes for The Pittsburgh Press and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio