In an editorial entitled "Can Mr. Obama Avoid Mission Creep?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/can-mr-obama-avoid-mission-creep.html?_r=0), The New York Times declares:
"President Obama is scheduled to address the nation Tuesday on his plans for using military force in Syria. He will have a hard time persuading a skeptical Congress and an equally skeptical American public.
. . . .
It is a very strange moment for Mr. Obama, who has worked hard to extricate the country from two debilitating wars. As the president contemplates striking Syria, the public deserves to understand more fully what 'limited' military action actually means."
Sorry, but Obama has not "worked hard to extricate the country from two debilitating wars." In fact, he was personally responsible for escalating America's disastrous ground involvement in Afghanistan.
"The public deserves to understand more fully what 'limited' military action actually means"? Does this also apply to Bashar al-Assad? When you are about to engage in an armed confrontation, even of limited duration, do you always leak the game plan to the opponent?
But beyond any such "leakage," does Obama intend to proceed with his attack without Congressional approval, which he impulsively decided to seek, surprising both friends and enemies? Deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken told National Public Radio that Obama has no such intention (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-syria-crisis-usa-obama-idUSBRE9850N420130906).
Moreover, is Obama strong enough as a "leader" to proceed with the attack without international and domestic support? Probably not, and perhaps all along, he has been seeking an escape hatch from his impromptu, sans teleprompter,"red line," which he is now seeking to disavow. Glenn Kessler of the The Washington Post would have us believe that if it's not read from a teleprompter, the president is not responsible for anything he says.(see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/the-fact-checker-president-obama-and.html).
And if the US does not fire a single Cruise missile against a single Syrian air base? What will friends (e.g., Israel) and foes (e.g., Iran) read into this irresolution? Obama already has the answer: Congress is to blame.
However, the implications of a failure to act against Assad are far-flung. You will recall that Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/):
"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."
So, are Israel and Iran to understand that Obama doesn't mean what he says and that he does bluff?
Will Israel now act on its own, as it wanted to do one year ago, but stood down at the time owing to Obama's veto (see: http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-pressure-nixed-israeli-strike-on-iran-in-2012/)?
Regardless of what he decides regarding a "limited" strike against the Assad regime, Obama's credibility has been irretrievably tarnished.
Or what happens when America elects an anti-Leader, who is then faced with a crisis demanding leadership . . .
