Totally Confused

++I will admit I am totally confused over what I think about the recent aerial attacks on Syria and the ultimate stakes of the game. 

++Michael Tomasky advises us that Obama's war is not like George W. Bush's for a variety of reasons. His primary focus is on the fact that the reasons for President Obama's actions are rather self-evident and not based on lies or mistruths such as WMD or Saddam's non-connection to 9-11.

++Tomasky believes Obama's coalition is more consequential than W's because of the array of Sunni nations actually involved and flying fighter jets. Andrew Sullivan quarrels with this saying that George H.W. Bush's coalition was more substantial during the Gulf War.

++But Andrew raises the question so many people have raised--the legal justification of the aerial attacks and the potential--or likelihood--of producing more terrorism and actual threats to the United States.

++Ross Douhat has actually been writing sane articles in the New York Times suggesting that a goal of degrading and containing is plausible but beyond that there are no players on the ground who can fill the political and military vacuum.

++President Obama has eschewed the rhetoric about freedom and democracy and has basically asserted the priority of a stable region. Chris Dickey in the Daily Beat has been very skeptical of this saying that the status quo is gone and can't be fixed.

++One theme that comes up, which perplexes me. Writers are saying that the aerial bombing of Syria will strengthen Assad's regime and the Syrian rebels whom we support are against the strikes. How can Assad be stronger? If you have lost over half your country and the other half is in exile,how do you become stronger--and over what? This is like saying Hitler in the Bunker could hunker down and wait out the onslaught. The problem is that the United States sort of wants--really--wants Assad gone but needs him around to tolerate the airstrikes. But what happens afterwards.

++It is quite clear that the United States is coordinating their attacks with Iran and informing the Syrian foreign ministry of all impending strikes. The U.S. weird dance with Tehran has Israel upset. Bibi Netanyahu met with President Obama to express concerns that he will go wobbly on the nuclear talks and loosen the sanctions because of Iran's cooperation in both Iraq and now in Syria.

++The veteran reporter Walter Pincus has shown his chops recently in the Washington Post in his articles outlining how and what President Obama's strategy is. His articles are actually very appreciative of how President Obama has assembled his international coalition and exactly what its goals are.

++President Obama made his annual presentation to the United Nations today and talked about ISIS as being the incarnation of evil whom the entire global community must resist.

++Russia informed the United States that the coalition wasn't a private club and they would participate even if not asked. 

++Charlie Rangel, Democrat from New York,raised issues near to my heart. Charlie wants to re-instate the draft and adopt a war tax. Funding for this adventure has not been discussed by the debt-conscious Congress.

++Leon Panetta appeared on Meet the Press and said that he had favored keeping troops in Iraq. He didn't mention that the Iraqis didn't want us there any longer and their parliament passed a law eating a date for our exit. He also said that he was for arming the Syrian "moderates" as were the entire NSC. this sounds damning of President Obama but as John Kerry tells it the United States could not make any effective moves until al-Malicki was removed in Iraq. 

++General Hugh Shelton appeared on C-Span and mentioned that our troops on the ground were the 250,000 some Iraqis trained by American forces and if they could not resist ISIS the region had more problems than we can handle. He also mentioned something that is dear to my heart--"What possesses our political leaders to say publicly what we will or will not do." This goes for W and it goes for Obama. Sometimes the optics are that the President is less clear than he actually is.

++Oh, by the way, Hillary Clinton says she agrees with President Obama's strategy. Marine General Conway says it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

++So far,my original complaint that there are too many moving parts that have to work right holds. I also don't see how this unfolds over time. The true "Unknown Unknowns". 

++But if this is too confusing, you might get outraged that President Obama saluting his Marine President Guards while holding a latte. If you are outraged,the RNC says you can donate to the Republican candidate of your choice.

++ISIS has been a bonanza for Republican candidates. All of the Senate candidates like Brown in New Hampshire claim they know who the enemy is and they are better than their opponent at fighting them. Polls do show a wide margin in favor of the GOP in fighting terrorism and in foreign policy,both issues the Democrats had the edge from 2008 until today. So watch this space,national security could become the GOP trump card, even though they aren't in session.So you have to take them on trust.

++Dana Millbank makes the overall point that on issue such as fighting ISIS, immigration reform,and healthcare, President Obama has outflanked the Left. If President George W. Bush had done the recent acts in Iraq and now Syria,the Left would be storming in the street. I don't know. But I think I agree with Rachel Maddow that President Obama has signed onto perpetual war.