Agreed. I don't have much remaining faith in government, but I do still have faith that no American President will commit American troops to fight and die unless he or she thinks it is the best thing to do for the nation. If Obama chooses to act more directly, I will assume that in accordance with the intelligence he currently has, he thinks it is necessary. Therefore I will support him as I did in Libya and as I did with Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether or not it seems like the best thing to do for the nation given the necessarily very restricted intelligence available to the general public. I really hope it can be avoided as I think our days of being the world's policeman should end, and I'm tired of helping pave the way for the newest Muslim Brotherhood nation, but if Obama chooses military force I'll assume he thinks it necessary and has made the best decision based on the intel he has available.
Personally, in principle I think if we have solid evidence that he is preparing WMD to be delivered by plane, we should set up a UN no-fly zone over the parts of the country he does not control. But I can also accept that the President must factor into account Russian sentiment - don't want to start World War III here - as well as Syria's air defenses and alternative delivery systems and our relations with other nations; none of this happens in a vacuum. The equation as seen from CNN may not much resemble the equation as seen from the Oval Office, and we would all do well to remember that.