When Obama spoke to the German people before he was first elected, he promised to place all of the world's nuclear weapons under his control. That illogical and emotional statement may have been part of the basis for his Nobel Peace Prize selection. I was sad at the huge number of people who lauded his comment as brilliant and inspired. We now know that Obama can't even control the chemical weapons stored in Syria, the weapons "liberated" with the fall of Gaddafi and Hezbollah's conventional arsenal. I'm not sure anyone could.
As best I can tell, the compelling reason to launch a military strike in Syria is to save Obama's face and help secure his positive presidential legacy. So far, he has failed to assemble any meaningful support for the strike from any serious friend or ally. England, our best "friend" won't support it, NATO won't sign on, certainly Russia, Iran and China vote "nay." Even the UN has pulled out of Syria before completing their "investigation" into the use of chemical weapons (by someone). The signals are clear: no one wants a military strike against Syria to be in their resumé.
Let's list the bad versus good of a military strike in Syria. First the bad,
World condemnation for taking unilateral, deadly military action without conclusive proof of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime; high risk of the U.S. becoming embroiled (long term?) in yet another Middle East mess; high potential for creating political instability in the entire region; indirectly supporting a jihadist effort to assume control of Syria (and beyond); high risk of causing potentially destabilizing or at least deadly, jihadist attacks against our friends; collateral loss of life and all the negativity that goes with it; no clear military gains from a limited strike; negatives follow a strike that is too weak as well as one that is too powerful; no real long-term advantage to U.S. foreign policy and interests; other unintended results (think Iraq);
and then the good: Demonstrate that the U.S. does not bluff (may cause Russia and Iran to tread lightly (for a while), knowing the U.S. may back its threats with action); help Obama establish that he is a leader with power; may help destabilize the al Assad regime (but is that what we really want to happen?). The Middle East is becoming fertile ground for jihadists grabbing power from dictators, and the resultant instability.
What about not launching a military strike against Syria's chemical weapons/delivery structure? We'd (Obama) be exposed as setting "red lines" that are really just bluffs. Russia and Iran might be able to consolidate more influence in the Middle East, at least for a while; we could be viewed as a weak nation that doesn't support our friends or democracy (so what else is new?).
It's the unknown that bothers me. We just can't predict the many results of a unilateral military strike against Syria. I believe the bad outweighs the good, but who really knows? So let's don't do it! The U.S. is already viewed as a leaderless world power aimlessly wondering around in full reaction mode. I rather face more of the status quo than post-strike negatives and uncertainties.
