With news of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossing US President Barack Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons use and Israel’s airstrikes on Syrian territory comes another iteration of intervention advocacy in Washington and beyond.

The pro-intervention crowd has been quite vocal, and their arguments have become commonplace: “US credibility is at stake,” “implement a no-fly zone,” “arm the moderate rebel groups,” “create a humanitarian corridor,” “let’s stop the chemical weapons use” and so on.

Many of these voices are influential thinkers and experienced practitioners outside of the decision-making process who feel the slaughter occurring in Syria is unjustifiable. Others argue that US strategic interests are at stake. These arguments are usually well-intentioned, but that does not mean the United States and NATO should intervene in Syria. While the United States and NATO are undoubtedly capable of changing the balance — note that I didn’t say end the violence — in Syria, it is by no means easy.

That is the important part, it is not easy. Nevertheless, influential members of the pro-intervention crowd continue to gloss over what it entails to operate in the complex environment they so freely write about. Two areas are critical: military requirements and understanding the enormous social, cultural and political complexities of the Levant.