From James Joyner, the New Atlanticist:  NATO has had  "no planning, no discussion, and no thought" of action in Syria, declared Ivo Daalder, the US permanent representation to NATO.

In a speech to the Atlantic Council on the eve of a meeting with President Obama and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Daalder focused on the successes and lessons learned from the operation in Libya which has now formally ended. (Given the announced title "An Irreplaceable Alliance: The Impact of the Libya Mission on NATO," this was not surprising.)

Syria was not mentioned even in passing. But the first question from the audience raised a subject that has been bantered about for months: If there is a Responsibility to Protect and Libya is a model for future NATO missions, why not deal with arguably more pressing atrocities in Syria?

Daalder gave the most cogent answer to that question I’ve seen. The Libya mission was based on a clear formula: "there needs to be a demonstrable need, regional support, and sound legal basis for action." Daalder argued that "None of them apply in Syria."

On the face of it, he’s right. In Libya, there was arguably an imminent slaughter in Benghazi, the rebels had pleaded for international assistance, the Arab League had urged action, and the United Nations Security Council lent legitimacy to the intervention with Resolution 1973. None of those conditions obtain in Syria.