If Trump wasn't a factor I'd probably feel confident saying both the dem and GOP candidates probably would not put US forces (beyond the special forces that are there already) on the ground in Syria. It's a shitty situation with a lot of variables and chances at fuck ups/escalations.
I've seen some polls where most Americans want an intervention...but you don't have to be a genius to know that sentiment would quickly shift if we actually sent troops.
Samson...if you found yourself at a bar with Barry O and he asked what should he do about Syria, what would you say.
I'd tell him what he already knows, which is that he has three options:
A. Keep doing what you're doing. It's low risk and keeps the greatest amount of people "happy"—the American people seem okay with it, the international community seems okay with it, the Kurds seem okay with it, the
Islamists FSA seems okay with it, Assad seems okay with it, Congress seems okay with it, and you are unlikely to be faced with anything requiring a major course correction in the next four months.
B. Stop everything until you get Congress on the hook with a new AUMF. Starting foreverwars is too easy these days and a bad legacy to have as president. If Congress won't do it, then maybe count your blessings. No matter what we do in the Middle East, we lose, so maybe stop pretending IS is a legitimate threat to NATO and use existing legal international framework to do humanitarian aid/or peacekeeping.
C. Decide peace cannot happen in Syria until Assad goes and lean into removing him. Start WW3.
