Is There a Win-Win with an Obama Lose-Lose Syrian Missile Attack?

Honestly, should Americans be prepared to send their national treasure to this region for a civil war where the actions by Obama could send the result into an escalating dilemma? Will America have to place boots on the ground when the ground itself is unsteady and the goals are unclear and undetermined?

By no means is this seemingly unavoidable missile strike a popular one. In fact, according to recent polls, the American people resoundingly reject American military intervention. According to the Times of Israel, a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted between August 19-23 found that 60 percent of Americans oppose direct US intervention in Syria. This was compared to only 9 percent supporting American military intervention.

This sentiment of caution was echoed last week by U.S. House Speaker John Boehner. According to the Daily Caller, Boehner warned that if Obama, “… chooses to act, the president must explain his decision publicly, clearly, and resolutely.”

Obama has not explained to the American people in any form why he is making a decision to take the nation to the brink of a possible war. In fact, until now the Obama administration has hit a pause button and decided to place a pin in it. Americans certainly deserve more than this supine-like leadership.

Now Obama is caught in a Catch-22. He can vacillate as he has a tendency to do when having to lead. Or he can attack with missiles and possibly light a match for a new war, which he could have been avoided if he had responded earlier, before Al-Qaida forces came in to assist the Syrian rebels.

Whatever option that is selected by Obama, it is most certainly a military action and possible lose-lose new war that Obama owns. Most importantly — it is definitely not Bush’s fault.

Image: P020209PS-0181; uploaded by Ekabhishek; author: The White House from Washington, DC; public domain