The fact is that the Obama administration was right to end the Iraq War, and wrong to essentially bring 6 years of civil war to Syria.
I think it’s pretty clear we see things differently on a lot of matters, but there’s something salient here I think we can maybe agree on. I think a lot of people who supported Obama saw his anti-Iraq War stance and then were surprised by his later positions in various conflicts. The thing is, Obama is no pacifist, and never was. Nor is he a saber-rattling human-rights-defending pro-democracy militant. His opposition to Iraq was practical, not ideological: it simply didn’t make any g****mn sense to support a war that pretty much exclusively benefitted Iran and was also a terrible drag on the US. It was, in many ways, coldly calculating and utilitarian–what purpose did this war serve? If we don’t benefit, who does? If the accounts don’t add up–fuck it, he’s out.
This same cool, detached analysis led to, well, nothing much in Syria, as you said. Who would benefit from various degrees of intervention? It was hard for him to come up with a formulation where it benefitted the US. The most he could muster was attempting to order a cruise missile attack on Syrian military facilities, but because he sought permission from Congress, that also led to nothing. The only thing of consequence he really did was provide fairly meager support for refugees trying to escape that war, which only looks generous in contrast with today. But he did it only because there’s no real downside for the US to resettle Syrian refugees.
Obama “cool” wasn’t all about sunglasses, or keeping an even tone of voice. It was also cool as in calculating, both in good and bad ways.