Well, since the Obama administration believes that all terrorist incidents are basically criminal activities, they now profess to have sufficient proof that the Assad regime has in fact used chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria. McCain and others are pushing for far greater US intervention and involvement, and while Obama's nature is probably to avoid getting involved, it may be a perfect storm in that US involvement could provide a major, and welcome distraction from the many scandals that now bedevil him daily.
The overwhelming majority of Americans wisely believe that the US should stay as far away from Syria as possible. The rebels, if they were to be successful, would turn Syria into another radical Islamist state, and a real threat to Israel. There is nothing that even remotely resembles a nascent democratic movement inside Syria.
In WW II, we supplied the Soviet Union, as they bled the Nazis war effort. We liberated Europe from one scourge, yet condemned it to 40 years of totalitarian oppression, and millions more to death at Stalin's hands.
We aided Mao's forces in China, hoping to tie down Japanese troops, while Mao devoted his efforts to weakening Chiang Kai-shek's regime. a few years after that war, 35,000+ Americans would die in Korea.
In Afghanistan, during the Reagan administration, we armed the mujahideen, thanks to the efforts of Charlie Wilson, as they bled the Soviet army. Their sons, and grandsons, are now happily engaged in killing American troops.
I am not engaging here in the cheap spectator sport of Monday morning quarterbacking. Hindsight is ALWAYS perfect. Those actions, and policies, for the most part, were correct at the time. But there is one key difference with those wars, and the one we are engaged in today.
In the past, we had an identifiable enemy, a clearly defined nation, with borders and territory. Also, we had allies who were as committed as we were to the ultimate victory. Today we fight not a nation, but a radical Islamist movement that is bound by neither geography nor any convention as to decent behavior. And we have no allies to speak of. Many support our efforts to various degrees, but they look to us to provide the overwhelming majority of the forces, and the funding, to press the war effort.
Reports started to surface yesterday of comments that Bill Clinton made at a recent closed-door event, which were very critical of Obama's actions with regard to Syria. Obviously an attempt to provide space for Hillary to differentiate herself as she gears up for a 2016 run, Clinton pointed out that some 100,000 have died in Syria since the fighting began.
So why doesn't someone ask Bubba: What about Rwanda?
Over a million Rwandans were massacred during tribal wars, while Clinton refused to do anything. The nation's supposed first "black" president stood by idly and twiddled his thumbs, and diddled a few women, as the genocide unfolded.
And this is the guy who now rails against Obama's indecisiveness?