Starting another war to protect president Obama's foreign policy "credibility?" Seriously?
It would be like breaking up a barroom fight between a drunken husband and wife. Your magnanimous intent, in the end, is rewarded with both of them turning on you.
This could change an intra-civilization battle, to ultimately inter-civilization war, western versus eastern.
Expecting a tribal mentality to grasp the concept of western democracy is rather like handing the U.S. Constitution to five-year-olds fighting in a sandbox to resolve whose daddy is tougher, or more holy.
Want a preview of coming attractions? Egypt.
The idea is a playground of potential for unintended consequences, just to name few:
Precipitously destabilizing the region.
Unsecuring the stockpiles of chemical weapons.
The euphemism "limited war?" There's an old saying in boxing, everybody's got a plan, until they get hit.
I believe there is no up-side to this dangerous strategy based on a anachronistic imperialist moral imperative.
I believe without the affirmation by the United Nations, since it is not a defense against an attack of the U.S., under international law which the U.S. often (selectively) invokes, is an act of unprovoked aggression/war.
Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan as precedent, while history may not necessarily repeat itself, it sure rhymes a lot.