Intelligence Says It Was The Syrian Army

Foreign Policy has an exclusive.  Our intelligence service supposedly overheard an "official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchange phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people."  So, it is probably true that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack on his people.  

But, that doesn't mean we should attack Syria.  After all, more Syrians have been killed by conventional weapons.  Why would support of the rebels be better for us than support of the government, assuming we should be doing anything?  Do we have a vital interest that this civil war will affect?  Will our attacking Syria make the world a more peaceful place?  Have we learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan?