It seems, at this juncture, that the deployment of ground troops in any meaningful way, is unlikely. The intervention here, as others have remarked, should superficially resemble that of Kosovo or Libya and thus be very classic post Cold War military adventurism as opposed to out and out nation building.
Still I have to wonder what our purpose is to get more actively engaged in Syria. I'm not sure what strategic or other objectives they find worth the cost to investing in direct military action against the Assad government.
I mean until IIRC, the beginning of 2013, the West and at the very least the US's position has been... disappointing. After implicitly choosing a side in the conflict, that of the Rebels (which has plenty of merit to it, don't get me wrong. Probably more merit then supporting Assad) the West, out of fear of supporting Islamists, has decided the best thing to do is next to nothing. Which sounds like a valid strategy. After all you don't want to get in bed with ISLAMISTS and AL QAEDA and help create an ISLAMIST state in Syria. However, by doing next to nothing, the West has basically allowed the noble paragons of virtue known as the Arab Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to directly finance said Islamists in the Free Syrian rebel forces, thus making them more powerful in the Rebel movement then most of the other factions which might be more moderate in their behavior when it comes to various political and social issues.
Even now we have some Westerners pointing to stories of Rebel barbarities and say "Wow, I'm glad we didn't support those guys," when in fact, by alienating Assad and by not supporting any of the Rebel factions to any real degree, the West has implicitly supported the Islamist flavored Rebels by default because two of the main foreign powers sending tangible aid all this time to the Rebels, the Saudis and other Gulf States, have allegedly been supplying the Islamists almost exclusively. Maybe twenty years from now we can discuss the problem of the intractable Islamic state of Syria, and opine why they 'hate us' despite the fact we were supporting their side in the Civil War. I hope not, because the discussion of that problem will likely involve the mention of investing ground troops.
Even if whatever military operation we engage in does successfully remove Assad, we're going to see firsthand the type of sectarian violence that can occur in a Middle East nation that doesn't have tens of thousands of Coalition soldiers trying to keep people from killing each other. The main thing is, we'll be seeing the slow Alawites hanging from street lamps, while the fast ones will be busy running out of their burning neighborhoods and begging the last Russian helicopter out of Tartus to take them out of the country. And thanks to America, we can allow that kind of grassroots democracy occur.
But it's also "possible" that if we invest ourselves into the conflict in a "responsible" fashion, it might just be possible that we in the West can help broker a peace deal which might not necessarily result in death squads and ethnic cleansing. That window, AFAIK, is fading the longer the conflict goes on. The only way a situation resembling peace can be attained following the Civil War is if the Syrian Rebels seize power, but also (Allah willing) try and set up a political reconciliation or peace deal that gives every major faction and ethnic group a slice of the pie like in Iraq or Lebanon. This'll mean a chaotic parliament, this will mean politically motivated selection of Governors and police chiefs and judges, this will mean a dozen different TV stations and private militias maintaining status quo for decades after and thus there'll be lots of corruption and nepotism and politically motivated criminal behavior and strife, but it won't mean endless Civil War like experienced in godawful Somalia or Afghanistan.
That's what 'victory' in Syria will look like. Every other option looks far worse.