The Obama Doctrine

      One of the key considerations for Obama's supporters is belief that he would move America out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not embroil the country in another meaningless and costly war.  He stiff- armed Libya and kept America's distance from other Islamic skirmishes.  It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that these were loosing battles for American interests.  The combatants will say or doing anything to attract the world's only super-power to their camp, including lies, misrepresentations, and disingenuous promises. History continues to prove that unequivocally.   Then came Syria.
     Obama was bombarded from all sides of the battle to involve America in some manner.  He half-heartily threatened to use that force, looked weak, but in the process achieved two major coups without firing a shot:  he moved the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) further from falling into the hands of terrorists and he got Russia, Syria's major ally, to get off the sidelines and participate in a solution.  Who the hell cares if getting there looked sloppy.  The gambit of personal ego was successful.  It was a strategy move that neither Johnson nor Bush were competent in playing and instead chose to sacrifice America lives and treasure.

According to George Friedman in  Strategy, Ideology and the Close of the Syrian Crisis

The alignment of moral principles with national strategy is not easy under the best of circumstances. Ideologies tend to be more seductive in generalized terms, but not so coherent in specific cases. This is true throughout the political spectrum. But it is particularly intense in the Obama administration, where the ideas of humanitarian intervention, absolutism in human rights, and opposition to weapons of mass destruction collide with a strategy of limiting U.S. involvement -- particularly military involvement -- in the world. The ideologies wind up demanding judgments and actions that the strategy rejects.