Charles Blow, in yesterday's New York Times, laid out a salient point

[KingCharlemagne]

about intervening in the Syrian civil war:

As righteous as we may feel about punishing Assad, Syria is a hornet’s nest of forces hostile to America: Assad, Russia, and Iran on one flank and ISIS on another. You can’t afflict one faction without assisting the other. In this way, Syria is a nearly unwinnable state.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/opinion/war-as-political-weapon.html?

Picking sides in other countries' civil wars typically never ends well. It did not end well in Vietnam nor, more recently, in Afghanistan and almost certainly cannot end well in Syria either. This explains why President Obama's decision not to retaliate against Assad in 2013 without prior congressional authorization seems even more eminently wise and prudent. If we attack ISIS, we strengthen Assad. If we attack Assad, we give ISIS a boost.

I strongly recommend the entire Blow piece. It is sobering reading indeed.

[AwakeAtLast]

1. And of course, Obama knew this

And made wise decisions. Trump, not so much...

[KingCharlemagne]

2. I hope the 2013 episode receives a thorough airing in Obama's memoirs. I half expect

him to say he concluded that Assay was a "least worst" choice and tie the entire mess back to Bush's disastrous Iraq war and occupation.