No, President Obama Does Not Want War

As BooMan points out, the notion of "President Obama, Warmonger-in-Chief" is simply just not true.  His actions in Syria speak otherwise, with force always the last resort.

As the civil war grew worse, Obama refused to send weapons. But, in August 2012, he grew worried enough about the potential use of chemical weapons that he issued his now-famous "red line" warning against their use. By February 2013, we were sending medical kits and MRE's, but still no weapons, and Obama refused to create a no-fly zone despite considerable pressure to do so.

Then, in June, our intelligence community concluded that the regime had probably used some chemical weapons in a few scattered attacks. Again, he was pressured to create a no-fly zone, but he settled on the lesser alternative of finally acceding to sending lethal aid to the rebels. But none of it was sent.

The lesson on the eve of the 8/21 attacks was clear. Despite inheriting a policy that saw the Middle East as a battle between Sunnis and Shiites, the president was using every stalling tactic he could think of to avoid joining the fight on the Sunni's side. First, he tried diplomacy. Then he tried sanctions. Then he issued a warning. Then he allowed non-lethal aid. Then he offered lethal aid. At every point, he did less than what he was being asked to by the neo-cons, the Israelis, and the Sunni powers. In many cases, he was doing less than his own cabinet advised.

Then, when the 8/21 attacks occurred, he threatened to use a limited amount of force and sandbagged even that effort by giving up his right to act unilaterally and throwing the rotting mess to Congress. Finally, he struck an agreement with Russia that will take the pressure off to use military strikes so long as Syria is complying with the terms of disarmament.

His policy has been to reject the view that American interests are tied up in a regional sectarian war in which we want to see the Sunnis prevail. His policy has been to resist constant and powerful forces that keep insisting that we accept the paradigm the neo-cons set in motion back in 2006-7. His policy has been to keep us out of Syria, no matter the political cost to himself, his reelection efforts, or his posterity. 

Once again, Obama is not Bush.  At every turn in Syria, President Obama has looked for another path besides the actual use of force.  Yes, this has included the threat of use of force, but not force itself.  There's a difference between the two, and in the real world I would expect people to know there's a difference.

BooMan is absolutely right here.  Bush, McCain, Romney would have plunged into a shooting match with Syria months ago as a prelude to Iran.  Obama is choosing not to go that route, and he's getting ripped in the press for it, as "weak" or "lucky" or somehow denigrating the fact that we're not in another shooting war.

He's doing what the vast majority of Americans have told him he must do -- continue to avoid a war with Syria -- and yet it's just not good enough.

Ask yourself why that is.