Presumably, it would be a NATO-led air campaign, but who exactly would we be targeting?

Politico:

McCain, the GOP presidential nominee in 2008, said the goal of the U.S. air strikes should be to "establish and defend safe havens" in Syria where opposition forces can organize and plot political and military attacks against Assad. The international community could also deliver humanitarian and military assistance to these safe zones, including food, water, weapons and training.

"Increasingly, the question for U.S. policy is not whether foreign forces will intervene militarily in Syria. We can be confident that Syria's neighbors will do so eventually, if they have not already. Some kind of intervention will happen, with us or without us," McCain said. "So the real question for U.S. policy is whether we will participate in this next phase of the conflict in Syria, and thereby increase our ability to shape an outcome that is beneficial to the Syrian people, and to us.

"I believe we must."

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a close McCain ally, also backs what McCain described as a "new policy" toward Syria, an aide to Lieberman said.

So far, the Obama administration has opposed military intervention in Syria, believing that tougher economic sanctions and greater diplomatic pressure will drive Assad from power.

Sorry John, but you're not going to establish a "humanitarian corridor" using air power alone. You are going to need boots on the ground - and better trained and motivated troops than exist in any Arab army.

In short, you are going to need western troops, western equipment, western know how for a successful operation. Besides, I hate to break it to Senator McCain but the targets of those air strikes are thoroughly and completely interwoven with the civilian population. We'd be killing a lot of innocent Syrians if we tried to attack the tanks that Assad has let loose on civilians.

Of all the terrible ideas I've heard about Syria, this one takes the cake.