I’m about to violate my usual rule about not writing about politics on Fridays. (War, to quote Carl von Clausewitz, is the continuation of politics by other means.) It’s also possible that what you read might be out of date by the time you read it, since there were predictions that the U.S. might be bombing Syria as soon as Thursday, although the weekend seems more  likely if you assume the U.S. doesn’t want to bomb the UN inspectors.

The situation the U.S. seems to be heading toward is strange, but then again that well describes the entire Middle East. Recall the map from earlier this  week:

I’m not convinced the U.S. has a strategic interest in Syria. The U.S. does have at least two strategic interests in the Middle East. One is Israel, the first Middle Eastern democracy and the only consistent friend the U.S. has there. (I’d trade Barack Obama for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a second. And as far as I’m concerned, if the Israelis found some way to take over the entire Middle East, that would be fine by me.)

The second is, let’s be honest, oil. (Notice what’s happened to gas prices this week?) Oil is important because the economy runs on not oil, but energy. People forget that the economy’s tanking in 2008 started when gas prices shot over $4 a gallon, which increased the price of everything that requires petroleum or transportation to get from builder to seller. When oil prices increase, all energy prices increase. (Other than “renewables,” which are already twice to three times as expensive.)

Whatever Barack Obama decides to do is likely to be the wrong choice. That’s in part because there are no good choices in the Middle East, notes Victor Davis  Hanson:

Survey the Middle East, and there is nothing about which to be optimistic.

Iran is either fueling violence in Syria or racing toward a bomb, or both.

Syria is past imploding. Take your pick in a now-Manichean standoff between an authoritarian, thuggish Bashar Assad and al-Qaeda franchises that envision a Taliban-like state. There is increasingly not much in between, other than the chaos of something like another Sudan.

Our Libyan “leading from behind” led to Mogadishu-like chaos and Benghazi. Do we even remember the moral urgency of bombing Tripoli as articulated by the ethical triad of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power?

A day late and a dollar short, we piggybacked on the Arab Spring in Egypt, damning the damnable Mubarak without much thought of who or what would take his place. The result is that a kleptocratic dictatorship gave way to a one-vote/one-time Muslim Brotherhood theocracy — and then full circle back to the familiar strongmen with epaulets and sunglasses. Even in the Middle East, it is hard to get yourself hated all at once by Islamists, the military, the Arab Street, Christian minorities, and secular reformists. In Egypt, the Obama administration has somehow managed all that and more. I wonder about all those supposedly pro-Western Google-using types who toppled Mubarak: Are they still there? Were they ever there? For now, the military is engaged in an existential struggle against the Islamists, who retaliate by going after Christians — a crime of enormous proportions going on throughout the Middle East, which is completely ignored by Western governments.

In Iraq, would it have been that hard to leave 5,000 U.S. troops at a fortified air base so that they could monitor Iraq’s air space, hunt down remnants of al-Qaeda, and keep the Maliki government somewhat constitutional — given the toll up to that point in American blood and treasure? In terms of strategic policy and U.S. self-interest, the answer is no; in terms of Obama’s 2012 reelection talking points, certainly it would have been problematic.

What is left to be said about our twelve years in Afghanistan? Obama’s 2008 “good war” that he was going to “put our eye back on” descended into surges, deadlines, withdrawals, musical-chair commanders, drone proxy wars, and finally inattention. The only remaining mystery is how many Afghan refugees and asylum seekers do we let in once the Taliban replays the North Vietnamese scenario and Kabul becomes a sort of Saigon 1975. …

Obama ran in 2008 on the notion of resetting the Middle East — his qualifications as a new sort of messianic leader being little more than that he was a utopian African-American novice senator with an Islamic middle name, and thus the opposite of the supposedly hated Texan George Bush. That was the subtext of every word Obama spoke for two years, culminating in the Al Arabiya interview and the Cairo speech. Five years later, the region is in chaos, and American popularity there is still at historical lows. False affinities and cheap visuals turn out to be a poor substitute for no-nonsense talk backed by strength. …

If there is a theme of the last decade, it is that whatever the U.S. does, the Arab Street does not like it. We can debate the role of human passions like envy and jealousy, or the modern therapeutic notion of victimization, but do any of these elemental reasons matter any more, given that the American public has largely lost interest in whether the Islamic Middle East considers us friendly or hostile? In this regard, the implosion of Obama’s outreach has changed the question from whether they are angry at us to whether we care — or whether we are not angrier at them.

So the decision is in the hands of Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama, who said in 2007 that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Joe Biden thinks Obama should be impeached if he goes to war without Congressional approval — or at least he thought Obama’s predecessor should be impeached in a 2007 interview with MSNBC’s Chris “Tingle Down My Leg” Matthews quoted by The Atlantic:

I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that — and I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.

The Atlantic understates:

But now that he’s part of an administration openly pondering strikes on Syria without Congressional approval — even as dozens of legislators demand to be consulted — Biden doesn’t have any public objections, and the position he and his constitutional experts once asserted is treated as a naive curiosity in the press. If intervention in Syria causes some Republican legislator to push impeachment, just remember that Joe Biden once subscribed to his or her logic.

The Republican Security Council points out that George W. Bush got Congressional approval for Afghanistan and Iraq (as did George H.W. Bush in Iraq), but neither Bill Clinton nor Obama got approval for American incursions in Libya or Kosovo. In the latter case, the U.S. had absolutely zero strategic interest, which makes one think the Democratic position is that if the U.S. has no strategic interest, bombs away, and who cares what Congress thinks.

My feelings about Syria are not a sign of my channeling my inner dove. The world is a dangerous place, full of bad people whose ability to commit evil can be stopped only by those willing to stop them. War has always been a necessary evil, unless you think allowing Adolf Hitler to conquer Europe and kill millions of non-Aryans in his concentration camps was OK by you. I haven’t served in the military (because the military has never needed soldiers with 20/400 vision and bad aim), but I held my breath between this and this praying I wouldn’t have to write dead-soldier stories. And for those who have, or have encountered, sentiments like the last letter here, recall that the Constitution requires that the federal government defend the country; it does not require entitlements.

The sudden Republican discovery of Congressional, not executive, war powers might strike you as hypocritical too. It is not hypocritical, however, to question the judgment of Obama, Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. I have no faith in their competence in directing military action, and neither should you. Observe how well the Arab Spring has turned out.

Donna Cole raises several interesting points:

If we bomb Syria, and don’t kill Assad or any of his leadership, then what will his response be? I can imagine Assad going on Syrian TV, maybe even Al Jazeera all over the Middle East, and now America too, talking trash about how the “Great Satan” USA couldn’t kill him, he beat back the cowardly Americans, Obama is a weakling, etc., etc., and on and on and on. It would be nauseating. It could even work to inspire his supporters in Syria, and/or demoralize the rebel forces. Not only that, civilian casualties (collateral damage) is almost unavoidable if you are going after leadership targets or even the communications and electrical systems, this too will not earn us any friends. …

I have long thought another reason that Obama has been reluctant to bomb Syria, when he eagerly attacked Libya, is because of Russia. Many people don’t know this, but the only sea port the Russian Navy has outside of Russia is in Syria. I am sure that Putin has warned Obama to not damage any Russian assets there, to put it mildly. Putin might have said hands off Assad too. All this makes me wonder how dropping a few bombs so Obama can save face after Assad jumped over his red line on chemical weapons could quickly devolve into a regional thing, kicking off a much larger war. This face saving by Obama might drag us into something that makes Iraq or Afghanistan look easy. …

How will Wisconsin’s junior senator vote? How will Sen. Baldwin vote? Will she be a good party hack and go a long with what leadership tells her to do, or will she stand by her lefty anti war (so called) principles? If she does vote yes, how will the Madison media handle it? What will the Daily Kos say? If she votes to approve, I want to see all the Madison anti war left going nuts over it. Or do you think we will see their true colors? That all that anti war crap only applies to Republican presidents? These are questions inquiring minds want to know.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we will ever see that vote, mainly because Obama doesn’t think he needs congressional approval for anything. Another reason he wouldn’t ask is for the reason I asked the above questions, he doesn’t want to force lefties like Baldwin to have to take those votes and be on the record for them, regardless of which way they vote. I’d love to have her vote on the record for all the reasons she wouldn’t want to be. It actually wouldn’t be a bad idea for Obama to get approval, it could provide some cover if the whole plan blows up. He could say, “Well, congress approved it. They went a long with my plan.” …

To be honest, as this thing has gone on for the better part of three years now, I wonder if we are supporting the wrong side. Assad is a bad guy, but he kept things reasonably stable, and he is the devil we know. If anything, he was predictable, and wouldn’t do anything too crazy because he likes his job, dictator. As we have found out in the other Arab Spring countries, and Iraq, what we get after the party isn’t exactly what we expected, or wanted. If anything, that is an argument to sit on the sidelines, do nothing and watch the bloodbath from afar. …

It’s just a bad deal all the way around. I know Obama is going to launch some sort of attack, probably very limited, just a few days, cruise missiles only. He has no political choice now, he has to. He painted himself in the corner with his red lines. But, as I wrote in a post earlier today, it is worth repeating, do not be surprised after we bomb the place that a media report comes out saying Obama blew up an aspirin factory. …

A FINAL POST SCRIPT THOUGHT. THIS IS IMPORTANT: If Obama doesn’t do something, even if it is only minor, it could (would) destroy American credibility abroad, and Obama’s personal credibility at home. It would cement his reputation as,well (and I honestly really do hate to use this word), a coward. Not just with folks in places like North Korea and Iran, but even among countries we consider our friends. Places like Russia and China would be laughing their heads off. The rouge countries like Iran would lose any fear they of us they might still have. Our friends wouldn’t trust us anymore. It would be terrible to think about the fallout from letting Assad walk unpunished. It would also ruin any chance we might have to make friends with the rebels if they do win the war. Turkey would be furious, well, more furious with us than they already are.

The reaction from libertarian’s might be indifferent, but most Republicans will have a heyday with this. Establishment types like John McCain will be relentless in their criticism. The NY Times, and the Washington Post, have called for action, as have many liberal Democrat pols and pundits. Only the far left (like Obama and the aforementioned Sen. Baldwin) have been against action, a long with some of the libertarian right. Inaction could ruin any legacy Obama might leave. If the plan fails it could be just as bad for the president, but if it works well, he could cover himself in glory.

This is Obama’s problem. He has shown time and again he does not like having to make the tough calls, he tries his best to lay these calls off on other people, or just not make them. He has to make what may be the toughest call of his presidency on this, he has to do it soon, and it will all be on him. This is why the president gets paid the big bucks, and for once the buck will stop with Obama.

Part of the problem is that Syria vs. the Syrian rebels is like the Iran–Iraq war, in that you’d prefer that both sides lost. If you’re on Assad’s side, you’re on the side of someone who (allegedly) used chemical weapons on his own people, and Russia. If you’re on the rebels’ side, you’re on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

When I was in high school, I read the political novels of Allen Drury, beginning with Advise and Consent. The novel won a Pulitzer Prize, and Drury wrote three sequels, the third of which ends with the party’s conservative and liberal centerpieces getting together for that year’s presidential election, only to have one of them assassinated. Drury then wrote two more novels based on the outcome of that assassination — one if the conservative survived, A Promise of Joy, the other if the liberal had lived, Come Nineveh, Come Tyre. The latter ends with Soviet overflights of Washington. The former ends with the U.S. nuking both the Soviet Union and China, which had gotten into a war with each other.

That ending would be preferable were it not for the effects of the resulting power vacuum with no one in charge. The devil you know is still the devil, and the rebels look no better and possibly worse. The only certainty is that whatever the U.S. does in Syria will have a bad ending for us.