For the benefit for Heathrow Harry, Lonewolf and anyone else unable to grasp my point, I am saying that backing one tide or the other in a situation such as this is pointless and likely to cause severe damage to the country (Syria).
As in many countries where dictatorial regimes have been in power, Syria's senior government figures are polarised (politically) and must therefore be replaced by a caretaker government which can run the 'machine' of government until just elections can be held.
Allowing Syrians to order government in the short-term causes problems because whoever does this will be opposed by various sections from among their society. If there has to be a 'bad' guy then it is better than 'foreigners' occupy this place because this lends towards national unity in that it is better for domestic resentment be focused towards an 'external' entity than a domestic one. Efficient short-term administration of their government will in any case reduce resentment.
Such an interim government would be an ideal task for the UN, comprised of representatives from member nations but, getting members to agree on something like this, well, it hardly warrants further comment. And yet, if you are to enforce a regime change then appointing a 'neutral' interim government is vital to the maintenance of ongoing affairs while preparing for fair elections.
The business of elections would, I suggest, benefit from a two-step process in which a referendum is held to determine the broad priorities (in terms of policy) that their society wishes to see, followed by the elections themselves, once enabling equal representational opportunities among the prospective parties has been achieved (no mean feat).
Because the UN lack the ability to agree on such decisive measures and because their own bureaucracy is so sluggish, sometimes even non-responsive, it would take a nation 'with balls' to step in and assert such clear control, that's for sure.
However, if the genuinely desired outcome is that of liberating the people of Syria, of sustaining an efficient interim government which delivers impartial public services, then what I suggest is an answer to consider.
I find your suggestion at odds with the past sixty years of global geopolitical history.
I sincerely hope so. Otherwise I should be offering absolutely nothing new.
In any case, I should worry not about it.
Britain has no more leaders left with sufficient wisdom and confidence to be able to tackle any situation, whether large or small, including this one.