Richard Cohen, a columnist with the Washington Post, may have a point that, in some ways, U.S. president Barack Obama is 'acting' just like his predecessor, George W. Bush. (Just keying in that name gives me the creeps.)
The situation in Syria is what's called a "hot-spot", and for good reason, and any president of the United States of America these days seems, in my opinion, to be in an almost lose/lose situation. Did Obama act too late, not that the "act" has actually happened, at least militarily? Or, is it a good thing that U.S. military intervention has been stymied, for whatever reason?
As I get older, and hopefully smarter and wiser, I think it's best to keep one's military might away from situations like what's happening in Syria. More problems are caused than alleviated by such overt aggressive action. There is the humanitarian crisis, absolutely, but the fixation from any U.S. commander-in-chief today is to make the world a safer place for "Americans"... and others, no question. Blowing people up is hardly the answer.
Richard Cohen states in his piece today: "Obama was so fixated on not being Bush, so worried about stepping into a quagmire, that he wound up losing control of the situation."
There is no "control", dear sir....
The Washington Post...
Obama is Bush 2.0, but it’s no upgrade