I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s handling of the Middle East and Syria in particular — in fact, I’ve made the arguments myself for years.

I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s “red line” and dawdling and backing himself and our nation into a policy corner where we have no good options and have squandered credibility.

I agree with just about every criticism that Obama is seeking Congressional authorization, or denial, for cynical political purposes.

I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s vague plan to fire across Syria’s bow.

I agree with just about every criticism that we don’t know where things end if Assad falls.

I agree with just about everything that is conventional wisdom. Except the conclusion, because the conventional wisdom is answering the wrong question.

Congress is not asked to approve a “plan” or a “strategy” or how many missiles get fired, if at all, at what time of day and on what targets.  I don’t understand — militarily or politically — why some people want to take on that burden.

Congress is asked to authorize the use of force by the President of the United States if, as, and when the President deems it necessary to address the use and transfer of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in, to or from Syria.

If the facts are that the Assad government used chemical weapons to kill over one thousand civilians, then the President should have that authority as it is in our national interest to forestall the large-scale use and spread of weapons of mass destruction.  That we cannot or should not do it in every case does not mean the President should not have authority in this case.

Whether, when and how to use force with regard to Syria, and the success or not, then will and should be on the President, and the President alone as Commander-in-Chief.

For better or worse, at least since World War II many burdens have fallen on us more so than on other nations.

It is our destiny as the world’s only shining city upon a hill.