What Trump should do in Syria,

All wars are frightening for those stuck in the middle, but the five-and-a-half-year conflict in Syria has proven to be especially horrific. What kind of policy might President-elect Donald Trump adopt toward it? How different would his approach be from Barack Obama’s? Despite his early rhetoric about joining with the Russian and Syrian governments to fight the self-declared Islamic State, or ISIS, Trump is likely to encounter a far more complicated terrain than he seems to understand, which will require a much tougher approach toward Moscow than he so far envisions.
What makes the Syrian war so dangerous is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s determination to fight not simply by attacking opposing combatants, as the laws of war allow, but by targeting and indiscriminately firing upon civilians and civilian infrastructure in opposition-held areas, blatantly flouting those laws. Hospitals, markets, schools, and apartment buildings—the institutions of modern urban life—have all been targeted with unrelenting cruelty. For the past year, Assad’s attacks have been supplemented and intensified by the Russian air force under Russian President Vladimir Putin’s command without a discernible change in targeting strategy.
http://bit.ly/2fH74T6

The first thing Trump should do is tell Israel to stop bombing Syria.

The first thing Trump should do is tell Israel to stop bombing Syria.
Yessiree, that should fix it.

If America needs Syrian oil, robing that openly would be a better choice than participating in stupid and inhuman fighting/bombing there. So, Trump should disengage in Syria.
It is not up to the USA to bring human rights or democracy, especially militarily, anywhere in the world; it should be left up to the people in the lands concerned. Of course, the USA would be better if it acted on transforming the United Nations from a farce of a union of civilized and barbaric nations to a true advocate of human rights everywhere in the world.
If Syria attacks Israel, and Israel asks for US help, then the USA should provide that help. If Russia gains a foothold in Syria, that by itself should not be considered too provocative, as America has a lot more of those in many parts of the world.
Looking at the recent experiments of democracy in the Middle East, Bashar al Assad is probably the best that Syrian people deserve right now as the leader. Democracy has brought Islamic fanatics to power even in Turkey.

It is not up to the USA to bring human rights or democracy, especially militarily, anywhere in the world; it should be left up to the people in the lands concerned.
In a perfect world, yes. But in a world where the USA has destabilized entire regions and imposed its systems on them, we are responsible. If we reduced our military presence everywhere AND quit selling arms to everyone, then having a UN would make more sense. If our president didn't have the option of torturing people or helicoptering into a nation without permission and killing someone who lived there, we might get more cooperation from the rest of the world. Beside all that, your blanket statement leaves open a huge ethical dilemma. What do you do when a powerful neighbor runs over a weaker, peaceful one and starts killing their people and taking their resources?

Hopefully what he will do is go there and stay.