Got to admit, I find myself in the Bubblehead1980 court here, and I never thought that'd happen.
This strike, is a bad idea, and I think everyone down to the lowliest street cleaner can see that. It's not going to do much against the well hidden Syrian chemical installations, and it's just going to annoy everyone in the region, and you can bet anything that the strike will conveniently miss the FSAs chemical weapons, because you know, they're never going to use chemical weapons because they're the good guys (sarcasm).
Obama has, through some pretty muddled foreign policy, painted himself into a corner, he called Assads bluff, and Assad called it right back.
There are only two reasons I can see a semi-rational leader going ahead with these strikes, 1) Is to try to level the playing field a bit so that this civil war continues indefinitely, because no matter who wins in this war, the US and its allies will lose, so the only way the US can win is to keep it going, however to do that they'd need to hit BOTH sides chemical weapons, and I can't see that happening and 2) is to try to prove after the diplomatic disaster that is Egypt that America still has some power in deciding matters in the Middle East, but unfortunately all its going to prove is how little power they have there.
The only way Obama can back out of this with only a minimal amount of loss of face is to put it to Congress, Congress will shoot it down, this much is pretty certain, and if they don't then the blame can be shared, but they will shoot it down and then Obama can turn around and say "Well, I tried, but they won't let me." and walk away.
Can't see that happening though, either. So it'll be another executive decision.
Can you say "Our government is united in its determination to take all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defence of peace in south-east Asia?"
