I’ve avoided discussing the whole “will-he-or-won’t-he” babbling regarding President Obama and Syria until now, choosing to read all of the many rationales for our traipsing into another complex, murky battle. Having digested plenty of arguments, both pro- and con-, I have no choice but to come down firmly on the “No” side.
This isn’t just because there are no clear-cut “good guys” here, although trying to figure out who to root for/against in Syria makes the ’90s Bosnian War look like an old Lone Ranger episode. Nor am I against lobbing warheads into Syria simply due to us conservatives “hating this President“. As a lowly blogger, my decision isn’t even slightly political, even though there are lots of political nuances affecting this vote, on all sides.
Bottom line: I don’t trust Obama’s judgement with this, because I don’t believe HE wants to be there.
And if history has shown us anything, it’s that when the leader of a country doesn’t absolutely want to be IN a conflict, it’s unlikely they’re going to WIN the conflict.
Peggy Noonan had a great piece in WSJ.com saying much the same thing, “Syria and Obama: Wrong time, wrong place, wrong plan, wrong man“. But for my money, Charles Krauthammer said it even better, and far more pithily:
In the end, our reluctance to go to war this time isn’t about the American people: it’s about our having faith (or a lack thereof) in the judgement, integrity and grit of President “Leading From Behind”.
And if there’s a wide-spread issue with that, Barack Obama has no one to blame but himself.