The main reason Syria is getting so much attention in the Western media is because it's not exactly an ally of the West, it's allied to Iran, Hezbollah and Russia.
DR Congo where Western Multinationals were making a billions received next to no help, in fact opposition rebels were being paid protection money by these very same Corporations. Final death toll...wait for it- 5.4 MILLION!!! Pretty hypocritical of us to cry about Syria especially with Israel next door occupying Palestinian and Syrian land far the last 45years.
Arms are being smuggled in from neighbouring countries, Jihadist fighters are creeping in, NATO special forces probably already on the ground providing help, US surveillance drones and satellites flying overhead.....and then we have Russia and Iran supplying advanced arms and ammunition to the brutal sadistic regime for their own geo-political purposes....it's clear it's becoming one messy civil war.
What you guys have to remember is the regime in power is a minority Alawite sect. They are a branch of Shia Islam (Iran and Hezbollah are Shia) and compared to most Muslims quite secular (they celebrate Christmas and don't believe you have to pray five times a day for example). Being a minority they have granted Christian, Druze, Kurds and other minorities protection but the majority of the population is Sunni. When Bashar al-Assad father (Hafez al-Assad) first came to power in the 70's it was the first time the minority and historically oppressed Alawite sect actually had someone in power. In the 80's the (Sunni) Muslim Brotherhood in Syria staged a revolt in their stronghold of Hama. Hafez Al Assad basically flattened the entire city with deaths of upwards of 10,000. The Sunni majority never challenged the Alawite grip on power again until now that is.
Another point to consider is should NATO get involved it is likely to have to be unilateral without UN authorisation and not only that but the US would have to lead the way, there's no way Europe could do it using only their weapons at their disposal. The Libyan campaign brought up glaring deficiencies in European projection of power (had to rely on US support for logistics and surveillance). Libya had a united rebel army that controlled vast swathes of territory and Gadhaffi had a very dated air defence network plus it was open flat desert making bombing strikes much easier. Despite this it still took over 6 months to overthrow the regime.
Now picture Syria. Most of it's SAM network is old hat from the 70's and 80's but it's been fairly well maintained and is in far greater numbers than what Libya had with overlapping layers of defence PLUS it has some very modern air defence equipment too that were bought from Russia over the last few years. Coupled with a more hilly terrain which complicates targeting and a more urban environment meaning collateral damage will be higher than it was in Libya and your looking at a more drawn out conflict that without an Army could take a long while. The rebels aren't too united anyway with only pockets of cities under their limited control and also Sunni Jihadists have gotten involved (Syria helped out in the fight against Al Qaeda post 9/11).
