The great American essayist H.L. Mencken said there existed to every problem a solution — neat, plausible or wrong. Within this spectrum of possible outcomes is where the United States now finds itself in regard to its foreign policy as it relates to Basher Al-Assad’s despotic Syrian regime and the war-torn country it holds captive.

What started as a peaceful protest 17 months ago in the border-city of Dara’a has evolved into a metaphorical and literal conflagration of the Syrian people. Fighter jets, helicopters and tanks continue to besiege the opposition groups, and if one isn’t with the government, he or she is automatically against it. No exceptions or exemptions.

It is into this climate of uncertainty, fear and death that President Barack Obama has injected himself — after what can only be assumed to have been extreme reluctance — and issued the first warning to the Syrian government.

With knowledge of Syria’s extensive chemical-weapons stockpile and in anticipation of a further escalation in the level of violence, Obama warned al-Assad and his murdering militia any movement of “unconventional weapons” — chemical or biological — would result in direct military intervention.

I applaud the president for what he said, and implied. Intimidation itself is frequently sufficient to prevent an unwanted action from occurring, but

chemical-weapon usage or not, the conflict in Syria is still dire. Intervention must still be examined and debated realistically.

Narrowed in scope to cover only the American aspect to any such mediation, there is a trio of factors to consider: pressure within the U.S. to intervene, the U.S. role in an intervention scenario and possible complications that may arise afterward.

Directly intervening is an option — the last option, and one that I would support — the reality of the situation is this: Syria is not Libya.

The most dangerous weapons Col. Qaddafi possessed were hand-held anti-aircraft armament, and although he enjoyed concrete support outside of Libya, he had a poor military within. Libya also had a low risk of ethnic and sectarian animosity, unlike Syria, where a major fraction of the combat is now Sunni on Shia and Alawite against Sunni.

And let us also not forget this is an election year in the U.S., which means any military confrontation gone wrong is strongly suggestive of the vote swinging in favor of the non-incumbent.

Henri-Lévy, a popular member of the Nouveaux Philosophes movement in France, gets it right in his most recent plea when he says the U.S. can provide logistical support, loan intelligence capabilities and provide technology that would assist in imposing a no-fly-zone, all without deploying troops. This combined with the $82 million already supplied and more that is surely on its way for refugees and for non-lethal support to the opposition movement makes it possible for the U.S. to technically intervene without physically

doing so.

Any difficultly springing up after such an intervention will now be drastically reduced for the U.S., which is to say that any such dilemma would be negligible enough to ignore beforehand.

Economically, since there are no personnel being dispensed, the cost of the entire operation is likely to be less than the foreign aid we donate to undeserving or illegal countries like Pakistan or Israel.

But this is all under the assumption that the West’s cascade of constant and continuous submission to the bullying of Russia and China will end.

These two duplicitous allies of Syria have repeatedly voted against directly halting the bloodshed, and for all practical purposes, would rather see al-Assad’s regime reassert control.

After a certain point, we who fight on the side of liberty, freedom and human rights against the forces of injustice and intolerance and oppression must put the flippancy and alibis aside, overlook those who refuse to cooperate, and in the words of Henri-Lévy, “act without delay to stop the killing.”