My only prob with what Obama did is somewhere close to what dte said.
1. Red line would change the way Obama views things
2. Red line (probably) crossed by Assad.
3. Obama says he will strike because red line was crossed:
a. First problem, UN hadn't finished investigation and you'd think that since the US funds quite a lot of the UN, they'd at least wait for them to finish, even if the results would not indicate blame in the end, it would at least give more information on the type of weapon used.
b. However, this point does make sense as it shows consequences to crossing the Red Line.
4. Obama goes to Congress for a vote
a. Good thing about this would be that it's what is legally required of him (as far as I understand US law) and would give him the legitimacy he needs within the US
b. Bad thing here is that he said he would strike already. So it seems like he's backtracking.
I would venture to say that some people in his War Room have told him that attacking would require to choose between :
a. a full-on "A la Libya" assault (no boots on the ground). So no-fly zone, destroying Assad's armor lines...
b. limited strikes on some key facilities (military airports, communication links,...)
The other option would be to do nothing.
Doing a. would be the most "successful" course of action, but would risk getting the whole region involved in a war and there's no telling what Russia would do.
Doing b. would barely do much and the risks are almost as high as a.
I assume he told himself : "Fuck this, I'm going home to my wife and kids" and went to Congress to shut the door on the strikes.
Because by the time they agree to it, new reports will say all the important assets were moved ahead of the strikes.
