There's a lot more at play here (and many more players involved, e.g., Israel, I would wager) than a U.S. "air strike" on the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that the Obama administration will give to Congress uses typical Washington word-play:
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria..."
"Necessary and appropriate" is wildly subjective and open to interpretation, as is the second objective listed in the AUMF, "(to) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons."
Also, the stated objective to "protect or deter" against "the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons" puts just about everything (well, yes, everything) militarily on the table.
In effect, the wording of the AUMF gives Obama and, by association and its outsized political campaign contributions, the entire US-Israeli-Wall Street Military Industry, permission to put American boots and bombs on holy ground from Iran to Lebanon, Palestine and beyond. All that's needed? Obama only has to determine it's needed in order to "deter" the movement of WMD (the ominous acronym leading to the invasion and occupation of Iraq).
Do we even know for sure that it was the mad dictator Saddam (err, I mean, Bashar al-Assad) who used sarin gas? As a publicist of mine, Will Bower, astutely points out, "Every time John Kerry is asked if we have proof that Bashar al-Assad's regime is responsible for the attack, he answers emphatically with 'Yes, we have proof that sarin gas was used!'.
He never answers the actual question being asked. Instead, he continues to employ this classic (and transparent [and weak]) case of misdirection."
I'm not suggesting that the United States and the United Nations should sit idly as Syrians are killed en mass, but President Bush (err, President Obama) should not be given authority to rain bombs on the Middle East whenever and wherever he deems necessary. The Washington-Wall Street military needs a tighter leash.
The "cynical journalist" is a stereotype for good reason. We are. As a reporter in the belly of the empire there is one thing you can count on: Washington and its cronies (no matter if it's GOP or Democrat) are never fully honest about intention.
Remember Iraq, people. Heck, remember Congo (1965), Greece (1967), Laos (1968), Cambodia (1970), Bolivia (1971), Chile (1973), Argentina (1975), Afghanistan (1979), El Salvador (1980), and Nicaragua (1980), to name just a few "interventions" and/or misdirection.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a dozen or so times, shame on me.