So, what, are there four ways for Republicans to go here with authorizing Dear Leader's use of vague force for no seeming reason at all other than to try and heal his reputation? Let's see - they can simply say yes, arguing that a no, given Obama's missteps so far, would be salt to wounds for the country, and thusly try and dump the disaster back in Obama's lap - they can say yes under certain conditions, ie Obama engages in a much more substantial thing than he's indicated he wants, like regime change and active support for would be 'moderate' rebel groups, which Obama probably refuses, which is maybe something that marginally works out for both sides, or possibly agrees to as part of political calculation typical of him, thinking that such an intervention won't work and is indeed like to make things worse and that will be final proof of how neoconservative, interventionist thinking is flawed - they can say no and use that no vote as a soapbox to hammer away at Obama's failures in much the same way Democrats did Bush over Iraq - or they can quietly, reluctantly vote no, arguing that although it will damage America's standing in the world, both as regards allies and enemies, that is a rotten state of affairs that can only really be fixed when Obama is gone because ultimately Obama's worldview and ideologically conditioned dislike of American power is at the core of this problem and until he's replaced the stench of that ideology ain't goin' away.
Hard to pick but think only real options are between one and four and at moment I'm leaning towards choice four, problematic as it will prove - and for reasons stated, the core of the problem is Obama's world view and ideological inclinations and simply modifying some bad decision he's made in what will probably end up being in a vague and limited [merely cosmetic] way won't solve the core problem and therefore how can it really heal the damage done, which would be the presumption behind choice number one? Might as well back away and leave Americans with thought that this is the misguided fool they voted for - twice. Maybe something good can come of that.
But I gotta roll it around in my head a bit more. I can see myself eventually playing it safe and going with choice one - I think choices two and three are bad and really not worth considering - it's a bad idea for congress to be making foreign policy, that's a recipe for disaster and ruinous confusion - and if Obama were foolish enough to allow interventionist types like McCain and Graham to rewrite his foreign policy, watch out, to me that would mean he's put in motion a political scheme the purpose of which will absolutely not be in the best interests of hawks or the country - or that he really just doesn't have a clue.
