Last Friday on this page, Charles Krauthammer pleaded the case for patience in American intervention in Syria (Time for cool heads to prevail over Syrian gas attacks. Over the weekend The New York Times argued editorially that President Obama should wait for a judgment from Congress and the United Nations before launching missile strikes into Syria.
We dont have good options, great options for the region, the president told The News Hour last Wednesday.
Also last week, one could read that among some Middle East watchers there is a growing alarm that the entire region could soon be engulfed in sectarian warfare, with branches of Islam fighting each other.
Krauthammer proposed taking out Syrian President Bashar al-Assads air power capability.
The president came into office in 2009 having pledged to get American forces out of Iraq and Afhanistan. The presidents opponent in the 2008 presidential election, Sen. John McCain, now argues for substantial intervention in Syria.
For those who itch for more direct American involvement in the Middle East, it is appropriate to ask whose sons and daughters should be jeopardized in what assuredly is a no-win situation.
And at a time when Congress has sequestered Defense Department spending and House Republicans threaten to shut down the federal government, isnt there a giant disconnect between talk of intervention and Americas political reality?
President Obama is wise to wait for congressional action on the proposal to strike at Syria. If the president eventually launches missile attacks, he should have the backing of Congress.