The odd argument over fear of Syria's reaction to being punished.

I've read and listened to many people suggesting that Syria may react to being punished by retaliating, eventually leading to boots on the ground, and therefore, we should stay away.  The idea that we should be wary of Syria's reaction to being punished, just feels odd, though.

Avoid punishing out of fear of response?
Do you just ignore your child, if he or she is exhibiting bad behavior, because you're afraid of what he or she might do in response?

Do you ignore a criminal's actions, because you're afraid of what he or she might do in reaction to punishment?

Do you avert your eyes of the hostage taker?

If Syria acts out, you escalate your response: You broadly target Assad's military infrastructure.  If he throws a tantrum, you go after military equipment and implement a no-fly zone; if he goes off the deep end, you use drones to take out government leaders.

You think Iran's going to retaliate?  The US military would love nothing more than the excuse to wipe out Iran's nuclear infrastructure by bunker busters and cluster bombs.

You think Hezbollah will provide a retaliatory terrorist hit?  We know where Hezbollah lives.  If the US wipes out Hezbollah fighters, Assad collapses and Israel is safer -- a double bonus.

You think more people will die, now, because Assad will unleash whatever chemical weapons he has left?  How so?  The counterfactual scenario of non-involvement means that Assad is free to use chemical weapons as much as he wants!  The key difference between non-intervention and intervention, is that we would have reduced his capability to continue chemical warfare, and therefore fewer people will be killed.

There is no credible scenario where US boots are needed
There just is no need for boots on the ground, as the Syrian rebels are the boots on the ground.  Hell, the Free Syrian Army would rather we give them ammunition than to have US troops on the ground, fighting their war.

And frankly, just taking out parts of Assad's infrastructure may be enough for the rebels to take over and sweep Assad out, or encourage high-level officials to simply wrest Syria away from Assad and bring him to trial.

Why would we need boots on the ground, anyway?  We are not there to fight for the Syrians rebels; we are not there to recreate the Middle-East in the image of a western democracy; we are not there looking to provide leadership in nation building; we are not there to do someone else's job.