Well, for once an American President could learn a lesson from (I thought I would never say it) a "Frenchman".
As the finger goes up in the air to determine the polling breeze on the subject of whether to take military action in Syria or not, President Obama must weigh in on the damage to his prestige and ego in first taking a hard line stand on Syria's use of chemical weapons (remember the "red-line"?) and actually taking action now that that line has been crossed (at least twice now). Never mind the 100,000 people dead because of the past several months fighting. Concentrate on the 1,400 who were victims of chemical weapons (by whom yet unclear). He must be sleepless with angst at actually having to back up his rhetoric with action.
Well the advice that I mentioned above is this ... "Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself." -- Napoleon Bonaparte.
But, (pause) ... Who is the enemy in Obama's mind? Is it the Muslim Brotherhood? (not likely) ... or Al Qaeda who has allied with opposition forces and who he has been secretly arming with weapons to overthrow Assad. Is it Assad because of his ties to Russia, Iran and Hezbollah? Or ... could it be that they are ALL enemies of the U.S. (not necessarily Obama), and that we should stand back while they destroy themselves? (adhering to Napoleon's advice)
Very adroitly, Obama has hedged his bet and relinquished any adverse consequences to himself by stating he will now let Congress discuss the issue, hoping that they will share his opinion on who is "bad" much like GWB did in our response to Iraq. And ... he is getting support from across the aisle on the matter much like many Democrats voted to go to war against Saddam Hussein. Is our intelligence accurate? Is Congress being manipulated? Does anything either side does in Syria have a direct consequence to us in America? Have we been attacked? Does it matter?
Now some say that it is a bi-partisan thing now that Sen. John McCain and John Boehner have lent Obama their support for going ahead with the action even though members of his own party have unflinchingly said to stay out of the affair.
What's a President to do? Is there one clear enemy? Who actually used the chemical gas on the affected Syrians? The Government? The Opposition? The Opposition to indict the Government? Who really knows? And are we going to trust the same agency (CIA and in-country informants) that also told us WMD's were in Iraq? (and ... are those WMD's the same ones in Iraq that we let escape to Syria before Saddam fell in the last war in Iraq?)
I'm guessing that Obama has already chosen which side he wants to be on and that we will officially only hear what supports that theory. Everything else will be labeled misdirection.
Any bets that Obama will support the side of the Brotherhood? The side of the Opposition that includes Al Qaeda?
Should the U.S. follow Obama blindly with acquiescence to his determination in the face of opposing information?
Have we been down this road before? Weren't Liberals against war?
Be a Republican or Democrat do we jump in to exert influence into a war between Muslim entities?
Which side is good and which side is bad?
Could they BOTH (or all factions) be bad?