I think a bombing campaign is entirely out of question. The West now realises that the rebels are worse and less reliable than Assad.
I just had a lolz
Well I was of course referring to a "bombing campaign" simular to the one carried out in Libya which was maintained until the rebels had achieved victory. The US has made it clear that such a bombing campaign would be out of the question as they now consider that the rebels are worse, or at least no better, than Assad.
To be fair I did not consider the possibility of "punitive" strikes which will have no strategic value. The suggestion is that the strikes will probably not even last days but merely last hours, not so much of a campaign then.
Other than killing some people and shifting the momentum slightly away from the Syrian government, but not enough to give the rebels a significant boost to achieve victory, I can't see how it will make any difference other than maintaining a stalemate.
And so a conflict which has tragically already cost 100,000 lives will trundle on and more people will die.
Meanwhile the US, the UK, France, and Israel, will have the satisfying spectacle of watching Hezbollah killing Al-Qaeda, vice versa, and Al-Qaeda attacking a regime which stubbornly refuses to serve US/zionist interests. Although this will almost certainly have long term negative consequences for the West, as past history has a tendency to prove.