Violence is undoubtedly on the rise in Syria, but the actual story on the ground is almost impossible to divine, with the opposition telling tales of wholesale slaughter of civilians and Syrian state media claiming regular terrorist attacks, and the battles between the two getting almost no press in favor of stories that will play better in speeches at the UN.

In many ways, the truth on the ground is not only shrouded in mystery but is very much beside the point, and an incipient civil war between the Turkey-backed FSA and the Assad regime is really neither here nor there for policymakers. The decision to intervene has already been made, and whatever stories rhetorically necessary to transform the local dictator into some reasonable facsimile of Hitler or Stalin will be found.

The formula is, despite some claims to the contrary from hawks, very much a redux of Libya. Indeed, those who haven’t quite come to concede what a train wreck the Libya intervention proved to be are still unapologetically citing it as an example to be applied to Syria.

While just a few days ago everyone was insisting the military option was very much “off the table,” the Pentagon is hard at work preparing for the war many see as inevitable. Turkey, the NATO member nation most eager to send ground troops, has already rejected sanctions as “pointless” while condemning Russia for backing Assad.

The extent to which Syria is “not Libya” is that Libya has already happened and does not seem so good for the hawks in retrospect. Russia and China went from being skeptical on Libya to appalled at how quickly the mission morphed to full regime change, and are determined not to see a repeat in Syria. This has made selling the war harder for hawks, but has not changed the basic strategy.

Elsewhere in the country, a new offensive has been launched in the far southern city of Daraa. The opposition termed it an “onslaught” on the scale of Homs, though indications are that it is targeting growing defections to the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The latest upswing in violence comes as Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan heads to Russia to speak with President Dmitry Medvedev. Erdogan has been calling for international intervention against Syria, while Russia has been opposing such intervention and trying to negotiate a settlement.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed the reports of massive civilian casualties in Homs, saying there was no evidence of civilians being targeted by artillery fire. Since the Arab League has withdrawn all monitors from the nation, such evidence would indeed prove elusive.

The most significant violence is reported to have taken place in the city of Homs, where government security forces have bombed civilian areas in their attempt to extinguish an armed uprising against the Assad regime, led by army defectors in the Free Syrian Army. As the crisis worsens, Washington has begun openly talking about intervention.

Despite the admission that a preliminary review for military intervention is underway, an anonymous U.S. official says, “This remains a campaign to apply economic and diplomatic pressure.” Another said “absolutely no decisions have been made on military support for Syria.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney also claimed the United States has no immediate plans to arm the opposition. “We are not considering that step right now,” he told reporters. “We are exploring the possibility of providing humanitarian aid to Syrians. And we are working with our partners, again, to ratchet up the pressure, ratchet up the isolation on Assad and his regime.”

Still, the rhetoric from U.S. officials has become increasingly aggressive. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said in comments directed at President Assad, “Your days are numbered. It is time and past time for you to transfer power responsibly and peacefully.”

Influential members of Congress, like Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman, have also openly argued for providing military and other support to the opposition in Syria. Senator John McCain this week said, “There’s a lot we can do to provide moral support and to provide material support, along with Turkey and other nations, in assisting these people with medical care and other assistance.”

In December, the Obama administration instructed the National Security Council to begin considering options for U.S. intervention in Syria, including what they called the “unlikely” option of setting up a no-fly zone. Although it is difficult to substantiate, it’s possible that the Obama administration has already covertly aided the opposition in Syria.

A recent UN Security Council resolution on Syria was voted down by Russia and China, partially out of concern that the U.S. and its allies would use the resolution to justify regime change in Syria, just as was done in Libya to oust Muammar Gadhafi. This Security Council deadlock has raised the specter of a proxy war in Syria, with the U.S. and its allies on the one side, and Russia and Iran on the other. Other players, like Turkey, Jordan, and even Iraq may become involved in concealed efforts in Syria.

While many Syrian civilians are being killed, Washington’s pretensions of concern for the Syrian people are not credible, especially when balanced with its own veto record at the UN which has blocked efforts to stem the suffering of the Palestinian people, for example. And its support for brutal dictatorships killing their own people elsewhere in the region illustrates their concern for geopolitical dominance, rather than human suffering.

The U.S. and its Arab allies in the Gulf States would welcome the chance to remove Assad from power and eliminate Iran’s primary ally. But the consequences of intervention are likely to be more dire than anything seen so far in Syria. A substantial U.S. intervention could set off violent sectarian wars in the event of a power vacuum. Furthermore, as has been the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and beyond, the regimes Washington leaves behind after ruthlessly instituting regime change are typically just as brutal as the ones they ousted.

The pledges from Assad seem to point to Russia’s efforts at mediation moving forward. A top member of the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) says that the group is open to Russian-coordinated talks. This is also a positive sign, given that a previous SNC official had insisted that they were not open to talks under any circumstances.

At the same time, violence has continued in Homs, and the Interior Ministry is vowing a “continued offensive” against the rebel factions still active in the city. The number of dead today appears to be significantly smaller than in previous days, but the opposition still says shelling is ongoing.

Even if the SNC does join in the talks, it might not stop the violence. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) operates entirely separately and has ruled out any negotiated solution, saying only “military options” will be considered.

The nature of the deaths is hotly disputed as shelling continues in the city. The opposition reports say that the deaths are overwhelmingly civilian in nature, part of an ongoing “massacre” by the Assad forces. Regime spokesmen, however, say that the shelling was done as part of a military operation against “terrorists.”

The term “terrorist” has been broadly overused by the Syrian state media to the point it has lost all meaning, but could well refer for the Free Syrian Army (FSA), active in Homs and elsewhere across Syria. The suggestion that this was not simply another attack on civilians is bolstered by Interior Ministry reports that six members of the regime’s security forces were also killed in the fighting.

In that light the violence is not part of the crackdown of months prior, but rather part of an incipient civil war against the FSA, whose leader Col. Riad al-Assad insists that “only military options are on the table” and that negotiated settlements will never be allowed.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), reports Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy, urged for some kind of intervention in support of the opposition and against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, saying “[t]here are many different options as to how we can do that. There are the early beginnings of a civil war taking place in Syria. And if the government is going to kill randomly, people deserve the right to defend and fight for themselves.”

Kerry would not explicitly describe how a U.S. intervention would manifest, but did not mince words in suggesting that intervention was in the works. ”Syria is not Libya,” Kerry said. “But nobody should interpret that statement to suggest that it means that Syrian leaders can rely on the notion that they can act with impunity and not expect the international community to assist the Syrian people in some way.”

Journalists on the ground in the opposition’s stronghold of Homs have reported definite shelling by Syrian security forces of civilian areas. A recent UN Security Council resolution on Syria was voted down by Russia and China, partially out of concern that the U.S. and its allies would use the resolution to justify regime change in Syria, just as was done in Libya to oust Muammar Gadhafi.

But blocking intervention at the UN has paradoxically hardened the West’s calls for perhaps a quieter route. “This is not only a recipe for deadlock at the UN,” writes Daniel Larison, “but also for a clash of interests between Assad’s patrons and Assad’s enemies” that may put interested powers “on a path to make Syria’s internal conflict into a proxy war.”

Kerry spoke at a security conference in Munich along with a number of other influential members of Congress. ”There’s a lot we can do to provide moral support and to provide material support, along with Turkey and other nations, in assisting these people with medical care and other assistance,” added Senator John McCain (R-AZ).

Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said, “I hope the international community and the U.S. will provide assistance to the Syrian Free Army in the various ways we can. I hope we will work with Turkey and Jordan to create safe havens on the borders of those two countries with Syria.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, although she claimed military intervention “has been absolutely ruled out,” has also said, “[W]e have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future.” Some take this as innuendo suggesting covert intervention.

The humanitarian concerns in Syria are very real and the Assad regime is very brutal, but Washington’s pretensions of concern for the Syrian people are questionable when balanced with its own veto record at the UN and its support for brutal dictatorships elsewhere in the region. Indeed, the U.S. and its Arab allies in the Gulf States would welcome the chance to remove Assad from power and eliminate Iran’s primary ally.

But the consequences of intervention are likely to be more dire than anything seen so far in Syria. Despite having no authority to go around instituting regime change, Washington lacks the understanding of how best to organize Syrian society and sectarian wars could be unleashed in the event of a power vacuum. As has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, the regimes Washington leaves behind are just as brutal as the ones with which they so savagely dispense.

The closure, which seems to be permanent (or as permanent as these things ever are), puts an end to Ambassador Robert Ford’s tenure, less than two years after the administration put him forward as a candidate for the first ambassador to Syria since 2005, when President Bush had likewise issued an angry public condemnation of the Assad government and closed the embassy.

Ford’s brief term will be memorable primarily for his decision to attend public protests against the government to which he was supposed to be the ambassador, as well as the time pro-Assad protesters threw tomatoes at him. Perhaps his most impactful moment was a Facebook post in which he insisted that the official US position was that the Syrian government couldn’t theoretically reform, setting the stage for increased US hostility and the embassy’s eventual closure.

Whereas opening the embassy was presented as a moment of hope, in retrospect there appears to have been no effort by Ambassador Ford to improve US ties with Syria. To skeptics it would seem that the only reason the Obama Administration even went to the trouble and expense of reopening the embassy was so it could issue a high profile condemnation and leave dramatically.

The violence comes in the wake of the veto of the UN Security Council’s resolution condemning Syria’s government. Western officials insis that the veto was a “license to kill” for the Assad regime.

The resolution, however, had already ruled out the military invasion some were seeking, and while it still left open calls for a negotiated settlement, the armed opposition appears to have no interest in that. Free Syrian Army commander Col. Assad insisted that “only military options are on the table.”

While the veto gives Western officials a chance to blame Russia and China for the continuing violence in Syria, there was little chance that the UN was going to stop it. Instead, a civil war continues to spread in the absence of any serious efforts to settle things, and even the Arab League’s monitors are long gone.

As violence escalates in Syria, rights groups say that up to 321 Syrians have been killed this weekend in the city of Homs due to shelling by the Assad government. The U.S. has been pushing to intervene and take Assad from power, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice used the recent killings to criticize the veto from Russia and China.

“The United States is disgusted that  a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent  us from fulfilling our sole purpose,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said. “For months this council has been held hostage by a couple of members,” she said, which she said had been “delaying and stripping bare any text to force Assad to stop his actions.”

The U.S. has predictably couched their push for intervention in humanitarian terms, while Russia does exactly the same thing, arguing that intervention, especially if led by the U.S., would cause more bloodshed and chaos.

In truth, geopolitical concerns are driving each of the postures. The U.S. and its Arab allies in the Gulf States, would welcome the chance to remove Assad from power and possibly replace the regime with a more Sunni-oriented, pro-Western dictatorship. Such a result would have the added benefit of eliminating Iran’s primary ally in the region, thus isolating the regime in Tehran even more.

On the other hand, Russia claims to object to intervention for the sake of the Syrian people, while it supports the murderous Assad regime with money and weapons. Russia is closely allied with Syria, a relationship that affords them a lot of influence in the Middle East, and has an interest in pushing back against Western imperialism for the sake of maintaining their own stake in the region.

Western powers, and the vast majority of the Security Council, continue to push for a plan that would sanction the Assad regime or even transfer power to his deputy and set early elections. Russia and China continue to argue for dialogue between the opposing sides in Syria. Meanwhile, the fighting in Syria continues and the humanitarian crisis worsens.

Though a number of experts believe that Assad will eventually be forced from power, “eventually” could be an extremely long time, and it seems the Syrian government is prepared for a protracted civil war.

Click here to read more from Reuters