It will only damage the commander in chief's ability to threaten wars of choice unilaterally -- and that's a good thing.
Yet journalists keep airing the idea that his presidency depends on it.
A vindication of public opinion
There's no shame in telling the world the truth: that our system intentionally constrains the executive branch.
President Obama, the Iraq hawks, and the inevitable dysfunction of any intervention they wage together
The secretary of state is dissembling in a most unconvincing manner.
The hawks' overwrought warnings are not credible.
They invoke World War II because it is popular, not because any of its lessons are applicable.
The messages they want to send aren't anything a foreign government would plausibly believe.
Hawkish assumptions embedded in newspaper coverage -- and one article that shined above the rest.
The unfortunate personalization of British politics
The American people's lack of engagement on Syria is cited in Washington to help legitimize war. But it does the opposite.
The latest staggering example: treating John Yoo as an authority on the president's authority to intervene in Syria.
He took that position after years as a U.S. senator, and taught it during lectures on the separation of powers.
Ideologically diverse critics warn that unilateral intervention would be risky, unpopular, and a transgression against domestic and international law.
Some hawks want America to strike, no matter how bad an idea it seems to be.
The pressure on President Obama to intervene in Syria is hyped -- and the pressure to stay out of the conflict is unjustly ignored.
His rare comments on the subject have addressed widely discussed stories and aimed to bridge differences.
The consequences of intervention are unknown because they are unknowable.
Reflections on the Ex-PFC Wintergreens of the national-security state