I know the President feels that he has backed himself into a corner on Syria with his foolish “line in the sand” comment, but I hope his decision to go to Congress for “approval” of any planned strikes is a smart ploy to avoid needlessly being drawn in to attacking another Middle Eastern country.
The 100,000 casualties so far are heartbreaking, but if we have learned anything over the last decade, it’s that blindly picking sides among bad actors to support in conflicts we don’t understand just makes things worse. We don’t “have to do something” if we have no compelling national interest, and I see none here.
My main fear is that Congressional war hawks like John McCain will clamor for action and force Obama’s hand, knowing that they can claim credit if it works (it won’t) and the shit-smell will cling to Obama if it doesn’t. I don’t think Obama is a strong enough leader to resist. We’ll see.
I wish the President would just man up and say “There is nothing good that can be done by us now until the situation sorts itself out in Syria. And only Syria and its neighbors can do that.”
Please don’t be steamrolled, Mr. President.
Now, I'm Just Amused. 
Interesting stuff, I think there is definitely a reluctance in the US and in Britain to get involved after what happened in Iraq, and by fear of further degrading western reputation in the Middle East. On the other hand, it is worth asking ourselves whether we’d like an outside country to intervene, should our governments turn on us? If you’re interested in history, please visit and follow my blog at http://publishistory.wordpress.com/ (I’ll follow you back!) – I’d love to hear your feedback. All the best! 🙂
You are right Jeff. We don’t have to get involved. What is happening is horrible, but if the rest of the world doesn’t want to get involved why should we.