Is Obama bluffing on Syria?

[geek tragedy]

Honest question. Internationally, he's been notorious for 'leading from behind' and responding to events in a belated fashion, not wanting to get out of step with international consensus. Libya, Egypt, etc--he's let other countries take the initiative.

Now, he's the one who's going to lash out without any clear objective or purpose, just for the sake of not doing nothing, when the US voting public is aligned with the rest of the world in opposing that kind of misadventure?

Seems out of character. Not doing something stupid or unwise--he's done that before.

But this isn't the kind of mistake he normally makes--he makes different kinds of mistakes.

He's a poker player, so maybe this is a bluff to bring others to the table or to rattle their cages.

I hope so anyways, because the use of military force needs to have a clearer goal than "not doing nothing."

[DCBob]

1. I agree.. it does seem out of character for Obama to go it alone on this.

This sounds more like something Bush or McCain would do. It could be a bluff but at some point seems eventually he will have to do something if the Syrians dont back down.

[geek tragedy]

2. It just seem so obvious--it won't accomplish anything other than symbolism.

Which is really a piss-poor reason to enter into a military conflict.

[GoCubsGo]

3. I don't know if "bluffing" is the best way to describe it, but...

...he's definitely playing a game of high-stakes poker, and with a really shitty hand, I will add. I pretty much agree with your assessment on the situation. He's definitely stalling, and I suspect it's to get everyone to put their cards on the table for the rest of the world to see. I have a sneaking suspicion he's going to hand responsibility over to Congress via the War Powers Act, especially given that the rethuglicons are itching to find a reason to impeach him. He's just the kind of guy who would throw things right back in their filthy, criminal faces.