This is not a partisan poke, for once. I really don't get what drives Obama's foreign policy decision making.
Libya had given up its WMD program and been very careful for a long time to avoid antagonizing the USA. When the Libyan government uses force to put down an insurrection, Obama goes to war with Kadaffi. Yes, I know, Obama supposedly turned the Libyan adventure over to NATO, but the reality is that the US military is still deeply involved in prosecuting the war against Kadaffi. Except, we're not really fighting Kadaffi or anybody else. We seem to be going to great lengths to only blow up buildings, not our putative enemies, which strikes me as a very odd sort of war. In any case, hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars have been sunk into that quagmire. Meanwhile, the French who did so much to get Obama into this mess are about to cut and run, leaving Obama where exactly?
Meanwhile, there's Syria. Front-line state that still hasn't made peace with our key ally Israel. State sponsor of terrorism. Long-time f*cker-uper of Lebanon. Patron of Hezbollah and Hamas. History of brutal repression. Currently, using security forces armed with heavy military weapons to kill thousands of protestors against the regime. Provoked protests aimed at breaching Israel's borders so as to distract Syrians from problems at home. And now the Syrians are aping their Iranian masters by sending government thugs to attack the US embassy, not to mention the US ambassador's residence.
The French fought off a similar embassy attack using live ammo.
Meanwhile, what does Obama do about Syria? He has a minion give them a very stern "tsk, tsk."
So the policy seems to be use force when no US interests are at stake and don't use force when US interests are at stake. If that's not the policy, I'd sure be curious to know what the policy in fact is.
And how about adopting a policy of only going to war with people who actually attack us or our vital national interests?