Putin is certainly playing to his audience and is guilty of more than a little hypocrisy in this piece, but I tend to agree with his central argument. If the world has any duty to those inside Syria, it is to safeguard the lives of the innocent. How will rocket attacks accomplish this?
The second U.S.-Iraq war and the subsequent occupation proved that state-of-the-art precision air and rocket strikes are still a very blunt instrument that cause a lot of civilian casualties when used. More innocent people died during the U.S. occupation than under Hussein! A big reason for this was the U.S.'s over-reliance on technology. Instead of using foot-patrols and talking to the locals, who might have been inclined to point out that they'd seen rebels planting IED's, U.S. SOP was to ride over the locals (and anything else) in tanks and hummers and call in air-strikes if they felt threatened. Forces from other nations, such as the UK, proved the effectiveness of foot-patrols, but the U.S. still largely ignores this. Technology has transformed the face of war, but the fundamental fact that boots on the ground are what let you hold territory has not changed one bit. The U.S. ignored this in Vietnam, ignored this in the first Iraq war, ignored it in the second Iraq war, and continues to ignore it in Afghanistan. You can't cower in a fort, blowing things up with rockets and drones and expect to actually provide security!
What the U.S. proposes to do is to keep their soldiers safe in remote locations while raining robotic death down on Syrian government positions that, if they weren't already hardened, probably started preparing for air strikes after the 2006 war with Israel (Note: Israel was attacking Hezbollah, but did far more damage to civilian infrastructure). Will air strikes have much of an impact on Syrian government forces? What security will Syrian civilians gain as a result?
There are ways to provide security for Syrian civilians, but all they require boots on the ground. A force could be sent to get in between the rebels and government forces, but they'd get the holy hell pounded out of them from both sides! Peace-making forces do not exist for a reason. If a cease-fire could be negotiated, perhaps peace-keeping forces could be sent in. This carries a lot of risk if negotiations break down. A third option is to occupy a portion of Syria or territory bordering with Syria, establish refugee camps, and try to provide ways for civilians to relocate safely.
It's great that the U.S. wants to do something to help Syrian civilians, but blowing stuff up like retarded cowboys isn't the answer.