I Don't Get It

Honestly, I've been trying to understand.  But this one is simply beyond me.

Barack Obama campaigned for President as the Anti-Bush.  He guaranteed that had he been in congress during the Iraq war authorization, he would have voted against it.  He campaigned as the "smart" one who could solve international conflict through the simple force of his personality.  He promised to "talk" to our enemies, as if somehow that would make them love us.

Now he has mounted a new campaign.  Not to win an election, but to win American support for tossing a few missiles into Syria to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons in that country's civil war.  He and John Kerry and the staffers he's sent out to spread the word emphasize that the attack will be extremely limited, of short duration, and is not aimed at removing Assad.

The only part I understand is that Obama set the "red line" a year ago, promising action if Assad used chemical weapons.  Assad promptly did so, almost as if he was flipping off Obama more than deploying the weapons to put down the rebellion. 

OK, so Obama wants to toss a few missiles into Syria so he can say he did something.

But as far as I can tell, his attack will serve no real purpose beyond proving that Obama meant what he said.

What is the bigger objective?  It certainly won't make any impact on turning the tables on Assad in the civil war.  Even if it modestly shifts the momentum, it appears that he'll be helping Islamic Terrorists in the opposition to Assad, which doesn't sound like a desirable outcome.  So what is Obama trying to accomplish?

There are several theories being floated:

It's about warning Iran and proving to the Mullahs there that they should fear the United States.  No, I don't think that's it - I think this whole exercise is doing more to encourage the Iranians to press forward with their nuclear program.

He is privately supporting the Muslim Terrorists in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Quaeda, and many other splinter groups.  Certainly he has been unwilling to carry forward Bush's war on terrorism, and he even banned the phrase (War on Terror).  But is he really so anti-American that he supports the Islamic Jihad against America and Israel?  Maybe, but I certainly hope not.

It is a deliberate attempt to distract the country from all his scandals and the failing implementation of Obamacare.  That one makes sense, but it seems like a pretty extreme way to change the subject.

There's a rumor that the Saudi's have offered to fund the whole thing, essentially hiring Obama to deploy American forces on their behalf as soldiers of fortune.  Only rather than the soldiers getting the fortune, it would be Obama getting paid.  It sounds outrageous, but these days almost anything could be true.

This is the Liberal approach to waging war.  That's hard for me to swallow, as I lived through Viet Nam and the Iraq war, which were opposed by liberals without compromise.  Liberals were fond of saying that war is "never justified".  So why are they suddenly backing this one?

Finally, there's the theory that Obama wants to escalate war in the Middle East, perhaps even to the point of WWIII.  That he subscribes to the Islamic prophecies of bringing the Caliphate into power so they rule the world.  I am afraid to even consider that this theory might be true.

Maybe there's a liberal out there who is reading this that can explain it to me.  Because I'm still lost for a reasonable explanation.