Western governments struggle with Syria What to do about Syria? Two years after the outbreak of the revolt against the regime of Bashar al-Assad and the world is no wiser. Gruesome milestones are crossed, words of indignation follow, but a conflict that started as a peaceful uprising and became a deadly civil war is no closer to being brought to an end. Last week, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees delivered another reminder of the devastating human cost of the conflict, putting the number of refugees who have fled Syria at 1m. Roula Khalaf The figure represents 5 per cent of the Syrian population, but add to it many more Syrians who do not register as refugees, as well as the estimated 2m internally displaced, and you get a sense of the human catastrophe. There have been worse refugee crises but the pace at which refugees are flowing out of Syria - at the rate of 8,000 a day in February - is staggering. As The Economist noted last week, only the genocide in Rwanda and the first Iraq war have driven out more people over a similar period of time. As the figures came out, so did new pledges of action to accelerate the demise of the regime. In Britain we heard from William Hague, the foreign secretary, that the UK would begin training some rebel units in the tactics of holding territory, something the US is apparently already engaged in. The Arab League, meanwhile, said the Syrian National Coalition, the opposition body, could take up Syria's seat at the leadership summit in Doha later this month if it formed an executive body. The league also gave its members the green light to arm the rebels if they wished. Will those actions make much of a difference to the course of the conflict? Probably not. The world has been responding in painfully slow motion to the unfolding disaster in Syria, every move a little too late to affect the situation on the ground. Arab states that want to arm the rebels - Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily - have been doing so, with or without the league's permission. As to giving the opposition Syria's Arab League seat, Mr Assad's regime is beyond being swayed by diplomatic pressure. Although Britain has been more active than most western states when it comes to Syria, training rebels who have been fighting for nearly two years is not likely to break the stalemate on the ground. Teaching rebels how to hold onto territory is easier said than done when the regime fires Scud missiles and uses its artillery and air force against opposition-controlled areas. So, barring an unpredictable event that suddenly brings down the Assad family, the bloodshed will continue (it is likely to continue, in fact, even after the regime is gone). The grim prospects for Syria are leading to a lot of soul searching in western capitals. But the pressure for action is producing a policy of gradual escalation of non-lethal aid to rebels, but not robust enough so they can prevail militarily. This was the message that Brigadier-General Selim Idris, head of the rebels" main military council, delivered in Brussels last week as he pleaded for the lifting of the European Union arms embargo. What about the diplomatic path? Western powers continue to support a diplomatic solution - but one that still lacks an international consensus over the fate of Mr Assad and therefore has little chance of succeeding. In the meantime, the worst fears of western powers are being realised, with a radicalisation on the ground that bolsters jihadi groups like Jabhat al-Nusra. Western policy today, in fact, has evolved to encompass two aims - to bring down the Assad regime and undermine jihadis in the opposition. The difficulty of this balancing act was starkly illustrated last week. While Britain was declaring its stepped up support for the rebels, a group of opposition fighters took 21 Filipino UN peacekeepers hostage and held them captive for four days.