If I am not mistaken, there were warnings issued before the United States attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan: A coherent strategy involved a beginning, a middle, and an end, and without all of those elements, the countries involved were likely to devolve into a chaotic and bitter and sectarian outcome that would drain U.S. attention and coffers with no credible silver lining.
The same lack of coherence shows every sign of being applied in the current war dance over Syria -- a country that has suffered enormous civilian casualties and displacements. A "humanitarian disaster" is not too strong a phrase and with the latest nerve-gas attacks, the volume has been ratcheted up.
Setting aside the fact that "humanitarian disasters" are seldom, if ever, the concern of governments, still the chaos in Syria is a rock-and-a-hard-place for the U.S. and others similarly (pro or con) concerned: Go in and risk a wider conflict; stay out and risk an unending chaos and, as a sidelight, a bloodbath.
Will there be a strategic beginning, middle and end woven into whatever action is taken? Much as anyone might protest, I seriously doubt it.
It's all enough to make a blind man -- or a sighted one either -- weep.