The plot has gone stale: a "bad government," the "saviors" and an ultimate invasion of sorts by the US and its allies bringing down the "bad government" to install a "good government."

People should be fed up of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now the continued support of extremists operating within and along Syria's borders.

Will the US target only the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria?

The answer is an obvious no.

Will the US attack ensure no future use of chemical weapons in Syria?

The answer is again no.

Will the "limited attacks" as envisaged by US President Barack Obama continue to be limited attacks or will the scope of the war theater be enlarged once it has?

There can be no such certainty about this.

So, what exactly is the strategy that we are talking about here? What is the US trying to achieve?

Many US strategists support the Syrian rebels, and a subsequent downfall of Bashar al-Assad's regime will result in a rollback on the influence Iran yields with Syria. Syria has been Iran's sole consistent ally since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

In a recent development, Obama has decided to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Assad's regime.

Is this a face-saving move as is being claimed by some political pundits or does Obama want Congress to walk the "red line" he created last year when he said the use of chemical weapons would be a "red line" for the US?

In fact, there are many unexplored avenues through which the use of chemical weapons in Syria could be effectively checked.

First, allowing the UN to conduct an inquiry and giving it access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack. After initial support, Obama's government reversed its position. The explanation given was that it was too late in the day to carry out the investigation and get valid evidence of the alleged crime.

Second, opening space for a diplomatic exchange with Syria where the interests of the US and its allies overlap with those of Syria.

Third, appointing observers to monitor the situation and ensure that such attacks are not repeated.

Fourth, stop arming the rebels.

If a change has to come it must come from within, a change imposed from outside cannot be long-lasting.

I hope that the US is not eager to repeat the same mistake it made in Afghanistan; using diplomacy not to avoid war but to ensure support from allies. Depending only on a military option is a failure of any foreign policy.

Zeeshan Javaid, a journalist based in Islamabad