A step in the right direction...

I believe in giving credit where credit is due.  President Obama backed off his threat to strike at Syria just long enough to debate it with Congress--as the Constitution calls for.  Now, if this is a good idea, given Congressional competence, I cannot say but at least the imperial presidency is being rolled back.  And this was a move by the President no less.

I am pretty sure this had something to do with the British people, speaking through their Parliament, saying NO to any UK military involvement in Syria last week. That, by the way, was the first time any British military action has been forbidden by Parliament since 1782.

The President CANNOT start a war on his own nor initiate the use of military force without Congress.  Granted, there are those who point to Grenada back in 1983 and Panama in 1989 as operations launched without any debate but those were potential hostage situations where time was of the essence.  Then-Presidents Reagan and Bush did however consult with Congressional leaders just before everything started rolling--maybe not the perfect solution but one that seemed to work.

In the 1990 build up to Desert Storm, President Bush attempted to assert he did not need any Congressional approval to invade Iraq but was quickly proven wrong. Obama's 2011 air war in Libya was unconstitutional but it looks like the roosters came home to roost on that one here in 2013. Congress threatened to cut the moneyflow so that also got the message across.  Things have a way of balancing out.

This still does not mean attacking Syria is a good idea.  This has the potential to get out of control real fast as things usually do in the Middle East.  Delaying everything until September 9 at least gives the situation a chance to cool off.

The US seemed to be in a rush to bomb, calling Syria's acquiescence to allowing UN inspectors to investigate the site of the chemical attacks and determine if the Syrian government or rebels used them.  The snipers shooting at the UN personnel were not on Assad's payroll so draw your own conclusions.

The build up to an attack on Syria in 2013 looks a lot like the build up to the attack on Iraq in 2003. I fell for that one but I won't this time around.  There has to be some other angle here than just anger over chemical weapons. The US did not punish Iraq in 1988 for using them against Iran or the Kurds.

Syria is none our business.  Airstrikes will do damage but in the end, it won't matter. They will rebuild. And Syria has a fairly dense anti-aircraft defense system. Remember, or look it up, Syria shot down two US planes in 1983 on a retaliatory raid.

Americans have been fighting in the Middle East since 2001.  It is time to leave that screwed up part of the world to its own devices.  Both Obama and the Republican hotheads should remember a basic law of history--wars are easy to start but hard to end.

Of course, you won't see Obama or McCain anywhere near the fighting if it breaks out.