Here’s how this plays out in the US politically.

Sec. State Kerry says that inaction will weigh on the nation’s conscience; GOP will blame Administration if they do nothing, and the body count rises in Syria.

If the President moves to act, the GOP will attempt to block action potentially with a vote in Congress. The body count will be blamed on Presidential inaction.

If the President moves to act, and Congress votes to approve, and the situation goes from bad to worse, the GOP will blame the President and Kerry for the entire mess.

Outcome: No good political outcome as the GOP will find fault with the Administration regardless of the circumstances.

Inaction is inhumane here given the use of chemical weapons by Assad. How we take that action is key.

The UN and NATO appear to be no gos. Unilateral (or with French support) is possible, but still not a great option. Who/what would we be targeting, and could we be assured of hitting all the necessary targets.

This isn’t like going after a solitary nuclear facility like the Israelis did back in 2007. The chemical weapons plants are more dispersed, and an attack could end up poisoning the surrounding area with significant casualties.

It may make more sense to attempt a snatch and grab of Assad directly, though that would require forces in excess of those used in the OBL raid, which was plenty complicated as it was.

And even if we got Assad, you’ve got a bunch of raving Islamists who would have no problem using those same chemical weapons against their enemies, and would cause plenty of mayhem in their own right.

Securing those NBC facilities would seem to be the key - denying their access to all sides, but that assumes they haven’t already fallen into the wrong hands. That would take boots on the ground, logistics, and a lot more troops than the other scenarios.

In other words - no good options. Only those that are less bad, and certainly those that are less bad than letting Assad continue padding the butcher’s bill.