Obama has failed to build political support for Syrian strike

Reuters/NY Times:

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.

Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans' resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.

The results - and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June - suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad's regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
...

Obama has botched his chance for build a consensus on doing something in Syria.  By delaying action until it is too late he has limited his options to the point of few good ones.  If he had intervened earlier before al Qaeda took over the opposition, he would have had a better shot at doing something to support the rebel effort.  He made the same mistake during Iran's Green revolution.

Now he is left with a Clintonian response of popping off a few cruise missiles and acting like he has done something without putting troops or pilots on the line.  For any standoff attack to be effective, it would need to be a sustained effort that would knock out Assad.s air assets and destroy his chemical weapons stockpiles.  I seriously doubt Obama would have that kind of commitment.