You would have thought that we learned our lesson in Afghanistan and Iraq about how treacherous is our involvement in middle east regime change. The devil you know is better than the one you don't know.
I guess there is one case where military intervention was justified and
successful: the war between Serbia and Kosovo during the Clinton
administration in the late 90's. Serbia and their genocidal regime was brought down
thus saving the lives of countless Muslims. It involved all the NATO allies and the UN and it did involve troops on the ground. Muslims really paid us back for helping them in 2001.
Along came the Arab uprisings which revolutionaries termed "Arab spring" but now has predictably morphed into "Arab hell." The Obama Administration got caught up with the revolutionary fervor in Libya (leading from behind of course) and we turned against the 'reformed' Ghaddafi. What did we get in return? We got more chaos and the death of our Ambassador and staff (and the subsequent cover-up scandal).
Obama also got caught up with the protests against Mubarak in Egypt and called for Mubarak to step down (it was lose-lose so there wasn't a good choice). What has followed is a disaster for the country as one form of tyranny gets replaced by Islamic tyranny then back to miltiary tyranny. Mubarak, as it turned out, had held the country together (with an iron fist), kept the Muslim brotherhood in check and kept the peace with Israel for decades. Now Egypt is basically on the verge of collapse except for international 'welfare' from the Gulf States.
In every case of Arab unrest and revolution the subsequent result has been a worse situation. Arab civilization is indeed collapsing.
I'm told that the upcoming missile strikes in Syria are not intended for
"regime change" but once you lob missiles, you don't know what
will happen. The fact that we are arming and training the Syrian
resistance belies the claim that the punitive missile strikes aren't
intended for regime change.
Obama stated that he would not get involved in Syria unless they used chemical weapons. Now, the administration claims that Assad has used these weapons. I don't know if it's true. It's reminiscent of the claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.
Maybe it's more like a case of the President being seen to "act presidential" to help his ailing poll numbers. After all, his only accomplishments in his presidency are in tatters: ObamaCare and Dodd Frank both aren't being implemented and/or completed. The economy has not recovered even after $6 Trillion in deficit spending and $3 Trillion in money printing. This administration keeps getting slapped down by the courts in a wide variety of cases. Both Obama and Holder keep showing how out of step, out of touch, and how inept they are. You could say that they entire administration is in tatters. It's a miracle that his approval ratings are in the 40s. Apparently many people are still falling for Obama's (smoothly-delivered) bullshit.
So, now that the administration is stating that chemical weapons were used, they have no choice but to act. Such is the consequence of drawing "red lines"in the sand. Our country's credibility, already low, is even more on the line. If Obama doesn't act, he'll be perceived as weak (which he is and everyone knows it).
So, expect some kind of attacks on Syria from our "peace" president, which may open Pandora's box of reprisals in the months ahead from Iran, Russia and their proxies. Get ready for unintended consequences as we intervene in another civil war and roll the dice on what happens next. Recent history shows that everything gets much worse after our involvement, which in turn requires even more involvement. All this to save Muslims from other Muslims who all hate us? I say let them destroy themselves.
I've learned my lessons. But this administration, full of neophytes and imbeciles, have proven to be immune to any lessons of any kind. That's what happens when idiots come to power.