"a degree of uncertainty" creeping in against the assumption that the president is on the brink of

[pampango]

launching military strikes "probably this weekend":

Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis (@PaulLewis) reports that he detects "a degree of uncertainty" creeping in against the assumption that the president is on the brink of launching military strikes "probably this weekend":

The problem facing White House is three-fold. First, its intelligence assessment, pinning culpability for the chemical weapons attack on Assad, may not be as watertight as many had been expecting. Second, and partly as a result of that, cracks are appearing in Congress, which is fully aware there is minimal support among the US electorate for strikes. Third and perhaps most interestingly is the lack of international support.

Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, tells me “caution has grown” in the US administration, which he now expects to delay or even pull back from military action. He said strikes were still a very real possibility, not least because of the build-up, and the strength of remarks from John Kerry on Monday. Any backing down now would be interpreted as weakness and be deeply embarrassing for the US.

But Bandow added: "I think they’ve found over the last couple of days both a lack of support at home, both among the American people and Congress, and then they look internationally and suddenly they don’t feel quite so surrounded by friends.” [...]

Ken Pollack, an expert in Middle Eastern affairs at the Brookings think-tank, said Britain's [potential] failure to support strikes on Syria could prove decisive for the White House – which will want to build a strong, moral, case based on broad international agreement. He described the UK as a "bellwether" country; if it backs out, that could lead other countries to revise the strength of their commitment.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-crisis-iran-says-all-efforts-must-be-made-to-prevent-military-action-live

[DearAbby]

1. I would feel Obama would be man enough to back down

if the evidence or support globally isn't there. I don't see that as a bad thing..He isn't Bush. And trusting other nations instead of being bullies and going all cowboy is really a good thing, we even may be respected again. Being President first, ego second.

[pampango]

4. He has been "man enough" so far to resist the "shoot first and ask questions later" crowd. I expect

(certainly hope, anyway) that he will continue to do so. The reaction in Syria with the relocation of headquarters and the repositioning of vulnerable military assets, has shown that the regime takes the threat seriously. To that extent, if the goal was to send a message - well, message delivered.

McCain and many others will cry about our weakness. Let them.

If the UN inspectors end up implicating the regime, things change. In that case, having given the UN team a chance to complete their work and reach their conclusions, will add weight to whatever decision Obama and others reach at that point.

If the UN does not find the regime at fault, we will all be glad, Obama included I hope, that no attack against their military infrastructure was launched.

[DearAbby]

5. We have yet to hear evidence

Debate the best way to deliver the message this will not be tolerated. Red lines can mean many things besides military use. JFK was able to work around it, yet still keeping it on the table. Give your opponent a way to back down.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I don't think it's weakness to stand down--if you can't get an international consensus

on some sort of military response, then you can't. But there should be consequences for Assad (and Russia/China for supporting this clown) down the road.

[johnd83]

3. Earlier is was absolutely going to be today

I'll wait and see. Having an opinion that it is a bad idea to intervene is fine but don't condemn him before anything is done.

[magical thyme]

6. all he need do is allow the UN to do their investigation...

as it is, they've decided to get out of dodge before they can investigate the 3 areas in question. Let them investigate and determine 1. whether or not their were chemical weapons used, 2. confirm the type and grade of weapon, and 3. clues as to who used them.

That's all he needs to do. And then go with what the UN finds. It really is that simple.

He can conclude there is insufficient evidence that they were used. Or that they're not military grade, so we don't know who actually used them.

There are many ways to stand down without losing face, and the most important one is to give the UN time to investigate and report. It really is that simple.