Reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria have sparked talk of U.S. military intervention, but experts said stopping the bloodshed in the war-torn country could prove a gargantuan task.

U.S. President Barack Obama has repeatedly said any use of chemical weapons would constitute a “red line” that could spur U. S. military involvement at some level, but Obama urged caution Tuesday, suggesting in a White House press briefing that more proof was needed.

Some experts said U.S. military invention could prove a long, slogging operation — a far-cry from the relatively clean, in-and- out 2011 Western-led operation in Libya, and others argued any U.S. intervention is destined to fail.

Global intelligence company Stratfor CEO George Friedman, writing Tuesday on his company’s website, contended U.S. intervention would simply amount to another force entering the fray, and would not stop the bloodshed in embattled Syria.

“The United States, with its European allies, does not have the force needed to end Syria’s bloodshed,” Friedman argued. “If it tried, it would merely be held responsible for the bloodshed without achieving any strategic goal.”

Indeed, the U.S. found through two grueling wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that while destroying a government was relatively easy, imposing Western-style democracy was much harder, if not impossible, he said.

“Many things are beyond the military power of the United States,” Friedman said. “Creating constitutional democracies by invasion is one of those things.”

Halting civil war in Syria would mean the use of “overwhelming power,” which also leads to overwhelming casualties, he said. ” You cannot transform the political culture of a country from the outside unless you are prepared to devastate it as was done with Germany and Japan.”

Nevertheless, the Obama administration is eying the country sharply, prompting talk of a U.S.-backed no-fly zone similar to the one established in Libya before the ouster of strongman Muammar Gaddafi. Options might also include air attacks against chemical weapons storage facilities or strikes against Syrian combat aircraft or heavy artillery positions.

But Middle East Institute scholar Wayne White told Xinhua that Syria’s air defenses are advanced enough to pose a major risk to NATO aircraft and crews.

He also noted that most targets in Syria are deep inland, increasing the exposure of U.S. or allied pilots to anti- aircraft defenses and increasing the possibility of a pilot crashing in hostile territory.

Syria’s geographic layout stands in sharp contrast to Libya, as the bulk of populated Libya lies along the coast, providing an easier escape route for damaged aircraft to exit the country’s airspace.

Moreover, a no-fly zone would not prevent Syrian ground troops from unleashing lethal attacks with chemical weapons, said White, former deputy director of the U.S. State Department’s Middle East Intelligence Office.

 

Others options might include joint operations with several partners to provide weaponry for rebels not affiliated with Islamic extremists, but a rash of hurdles come with that choice.

 

White argued the most effective rebel groups have become Islamic extremists. In some cases over the past 12 to 15 months, they are openly affiliated with al-Qaeda, adding to fears that weaponry could fall into the hands of Islamic militants.