That seems to be the game plan.

This is nothing like Kosovo. There is no basis for such a "clean" intervention. And while Assad may not be a grand strategist by any means, some among his cohort are reasonably smart, and know which levers to pull to make the cost of intervention higher than most are willing to pay.

There were very few US ground casualties because American/NATO forces didn't move into an area until after the Serbian army agreed to withdraw. Even the Serbs didn't really lose as many troops and vehicles as was originally assumed, because of the elaborate use of decoys that were counted as targets destroyed by initial USAF estimates. All that because Kosovo wasn't really essentially a life or death struggle for the Serbs. The same could not be said of the Alawite areas of Syria.

I believe the strategy here is of deliberate ethnic cleansing by the Saudi-backed Sunnis, and effectively a reassertion of the Ottoman Empire by the Turks, one which the US and NATO would have to tacitly endorse to carry out another "humanitarian intervention." That may be too much of a stretch for many in Washington and London, as much as they have long wanted to get rid of the Assad regime. Still, there's a lot of Cold War baggage weighing down this decision and Damascus is high on the Israeli hit list for Arab/Persian regime change, so it might still happen even though it will involve a bloodier ethnic struggle than Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or Afghanistan.