Well France is busy in Mali, and didn't Britain recently cut back its military spending severely as part of its austerity measures? Meanwhile Germany believes in having a military but not in using it, and who knows what the rest of NATO thinks of this. By the way what's the reason we haven't intervened yet? Is it because American public opinion has turned all isolationist after Iraq? Or do we genuinely think that the Syrian rebels aren't yet trustworthy partners? Do we think Assad's threat to use chemical weapons against intervening countries is credible? Or maybe we'd just rather have Assad in power and in control of his chemical arsenal rather than letting those weapons get loose in the chaos of a security meltdown?