Barack Obama has painted himself into a corner. He is facing the dilemma of either making a risky, unpopular and illegal military move against Syria, or losing "credibility."

Coalition partners Germany, Canada and NATO have declared that they won't take part in military action. Even David Cameron said he would respect public opinion after a Syria war resolution was defeated in parliament by 285 votes to 272 in a backbenchers' revolt -- the first time in more than a century that a government war resolution was voted down in parliament. Only Fran?ois Hollande, who took the lead invading Libya and who wants to play a dominant role in West Asia and North Africa, will serve again as a shock force.

Public support for attacking Syria is already low and still eroding. Congress and the military seriously doubt the wisdom of war.

One hundred and forty members of the vacationing Congress demanded to be called back into session to debate the war issue. In a letter signed by 52 Democrats drafted by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif), who cast the only "no" vote against the use of force after 9-11, said that Obama should ask lawmakers for a sign-off. The letter warns that ongoing human rights violations in Syria "should not draw us into an unwise war -- especially without adhering to our constitutional requirements."

Obama said he would seek the authorization of congress. That means the impending military action will be postponed until after September 9, and the president may be seeking some way to extricate himself from the political trap he has got himself into.

Even though White House principal deputy press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that Obama was contemplating "something that is discreet and limited" (Obama later put it this way: "Our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."), Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff, warned that "once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid." He added that "the application of force rarely produces and, in fact, maybe never produces the outcome we seek."

Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned of "potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel."

Earnesto Londono, writing in The Washington Post, says that many in the military are skeptical. Getting drawn into the Syrian war, they fear, could distract the Pentagon in the midst of a vexing mission: its exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are still being killed regularly. A young Army officer said that the prospect of attacking Syria was "very dangerous. I can't believe the president is even considering it."

Military analysts are near unanimous that a limited strike on Syria is likely to leave Bashar al-Assad's government with significant chemical weapons and military infrastructure.

More importantly, the U.S. does not have any convincing evidence that Damascus used chemical weapons. They don't even know where the weapons are, or who possess them.

Forestalling the UN inspectors' report, the U.S. government released an "Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons." Serious specialists likened it to the infamous speech by Colin Powell to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003 justifying the invasion of Iraq. The "Assessment" is full of holes and weaknesses with faulty intelligence and a distorted analysis.

Virginia Tilley, a scholar of ethnic and racial conflict and Middle Eastern policy analyst, wrote a detailed critique refuting the "Assessment" point by point. She described it as unconfirmed intelligence and mere speculation. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry are repeating the horrendous mistakes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. The incredible foolhardiness of the two governments is eerily similar.

It is clear that intervention in a fourth Muslim country since 9-11 is extremely unpopular. It could touch off a regional conflagration. Why then do the mainstream media insist that Obama is under intense pressure to act? What pressure and from whom? Reuters says that the pressure comes from an insular Beltway elite that makes the war of choice more likely. It calls this a Washington subculture that attracts foreign policy thinkers with an inflated sense of their own ability to understand and shape global events.

Who are these foreign-policy thinkers? You would be shocked to learn that The Weekly Standard, the neoconservative flagship, grants "expert" status to Karl Rove, the Republican political hack.

Will Barack Obama, who campaigned on stopping wars, become the prisoner of these hacks? He still has time to call the foolhardy venture off.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/zhaojinglun.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.