AMUDA, Syria — As the horizon is still cloudy concerning the date and details of the announced Western strike on Syria — officially intended to punish the regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta — the rebels on the ground are divided on whether the intervention will benefit their cause.

Those who support foreign action are actually placing their hopes on a wider involvement than the limited punitive strike mentioned by US officials and aimed at deterring further use of chemical weapons.

“We support a strike targeting the regime’s stocks of chemical weapons, as this is what has been announced by US officials,” Maj. Mohammad Yahyya Ali, commander of the northern and western fronts of the Free Syrian Army's (FSA) Ihfad al-Rasul Brigades, one of the largest militias, told Al-Monitor over Skype, “but they also need to hit the vital military articulations and establish a no-fly zone.”

Most interventionists agree upon rejecting a full-scale deployment by land, whereas they complain like everyone else about the lack of arms. “We don’t need men, but supplies of weapons,” confirmed Ali.