The incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, probably recalling the problems Bush 1 and Bush 2 had with the populace when they invaded Iraq sans congressional approval, tells the world that he will attack Syria if the U.S. congress agrees.
It is debatable whether or not congress represents the American people who, reportedly, are against any excursions into Syria.
Obungler does not need congress' approval to lob a few rockets at Syrians; however, only congress can declare war.
Obungler is criticized by his Muslim buddies for being hesitant; these same "buddies" are pushing him to put American (read "infidel") lives on the line. There is no offer from the Arabs to put THEIR troops in harm's way or even to use any of their missiles to end the Syrian civil war - husbanding them, I suppose, to fire at Israel.
A-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Mushari Al-Thaidy writes that “Obama continues to try and understate the strike against the Assad forces, saying it is limited, measured and quick. He further claims it is not a war and not intended to topple the regime. The only thing left for him is to inform Bashar of the coordinates of the sites being targeted so that he can vacate them and of the length of the attack so that Bashar and Maher and the other pillars of the regime can take their summer vacation as soon as it ends!”
Britain, Canada, and Germany have told Obungler that they want no part of any attack on Syria, perhaps because
(a) They lack solid proof that the chemical attacks originated with Assad's troops
(b) They understand that some of the so-called rebels are Al-Qaida terrorists
(c) They understand that no matter whose side they support, in the end, the Muslims will band together against the infidels of England, Canada, and Germany, attacking them at home.
Islamist-oriented Turkey, suddenly America's ally, is like its Muslim neighbors pushing Obungler to order an attack, but like the other Muslims, offering only noise in support of the president.
Israel, finally realizing it is on its own, is wondering why Obungler can't act; he has put himself solidly between the proverbial rock and hard spot or, in Israel, between the hammer and the anvil. He's made noises about a "red line" and the Syrians - either or both sides - have blatantly crossed it, thumbing their noses at their friend in Washington.
Like most people, I too have wondered about Obungler's words failing to match actions.
Perhaps - just perhaps - he's waiting to get sufficient naval assets in the area. When the U.S. finally - and foolishly - attacks Syria, Iran may respond, attacking Israel and, less likely, U.S. warships in the area. Since he has repeatedly promised that an attack on Israel would be an attack on the U.S., he may be planning to order missile strikes on Iran under the pretext of retaliation. Then again, what he might do is anyone's guess.
The only problem with that scenario is U.S. intelligence, or more accurately, lack of intelligence. Despite being blatantly pro-Muslim for decades, the State Department and the U.S. intelligence community lack reliable resources in the middle east (and elsewhere). This is an on-going problem for the U.S.
In order for missiles to be effective, they must hit a target rather than landing harmlessly in a field. Not only is U.S. intelligence lacking, the Syrians (both sides) are relocating assets at all times. Some of the assets are making their way into Lebanon, but there is no talk of raining rockets on that country.
From my personal perspective, the U.S. has NO business getting involved in Syria's civil war; just as it had no business in Libya's and has no business getting involved in Egypt. It will likewise have no business in the coming strife in Jordan, Turkey, and Saudia.
For the U.S., getting involved in any Muslim civil war is a lose-lose situation. Even if the Sunnis murder Shiia and Shiia slaughter Sunnis, in the end, the U.S. will be hated by both Shiia and Sunni alike. There are no advantages or benefits for the U.S.
