The dominant US foreign policy doctrine is Idealism. The two dominant foreign policy groups are NeoCon republicans and Liberal Interventionist democrats and they are idealists.
Idealists say we should be humanitarians, build nations, spread democracy and market economies, get rid of evil leaders(regime change) such as Saddam, Kaddafi, Assad, etc.
The Realists say Idealism is good, but we should act only on what is in the US's interest.
In Syria, through-out 2011 and 2012, the Idealists wanted to intervene, but the Realists and Obama said no.
But eventually and slowly the Realists shifted to supporting intervention in Syria. In the spring of 2013, Congress authorized arming the rebels in Syria. We give them anti-tank weapons but we don't give them anti-aircraft weapons.
Putin's speech at the UN blamed the Idealist US foreign policy for destabilizing the region.
Obama's main authority to act is the Iraq AUMF that he inherited from Bush, but that limits him in Syria and he has asked Congress for authority.
The GOP doesn't want to give him authority because they are worried that might constrain a future GOP prez and the Democrats don't want to give him authority because they are worried that might give a future GOP prez to much power.
Among other things...your story omits the entire Libyan regime change fiasco and the subsequent terrorist failed state it created...not to mention rogue government gunrunning scheme that resulted in the death of Ambassador Stevens and thre other brave Americans.
Were the “idealists” or the “realists” in charge of that one?
This is why I love FR - it provides insight into the kind of belief system(s) a large segment of the population holds dear. As long as people willingly handicap themselves regarding the truth, then it makes it that much easier to financially succeed.
The truth of course is the exact opposite: The dominant US foreign policy doctrine is Imperialism. Once you understand this dynamic, then it almost becomes trivial to front-run decisions that lead to more deficit spending, more market pumping, and continued Fed zirp/nirp policies.
For those interested in the big picture, which VDH presumably decided to avoid - not that he doesn't understand, but because it doesn't fit the publisher's narrative - is that Putin's entire focus is the reserve currency. The dollar status is backed by the petro-dollar, which in turn is anchored by Saudi Arabia. (Bonus points for those who know why SA wasn't targeted after 9/11.)
The dollar is why the US can run up multi-trillions in international IOUs - we are the largest debtor nation in the history of mankind. It's what provides us with welfare & warfare spending far in excess of our true economic capabilities. It's the reason 100m working age people are not in the workforce. It's why we were able to outsource production to China without significant social disruption.
In short, it's the lynch pin currently holding the USA together. By forming a Shia crescent linking to Russia (and perhaps China), Russia will be in position to weaken SA via multiple angles of attack - conventional and unconventional. If Russia is ever able to effect regime change in SA that would also weaken the petro-dollar status, then Putin can put the reserve currency at risk.
Long before anything actually happened, the smart money would see what is occurring and begin to divest from dollar holdings. That will lead to inflation in the US (as all those useless dollars come home), and impact our continued ability to finance the military, and of course, keep illegals and inner city cesspools under control.
This Russian play in Syria is a very big deal. We completely fvcked up with Libya, giving Putin an entre on a platter to walk in as the good guy. There aren't any "good guys" - all conflicts are simple contests for economic dominion so that some may live a better life than others. We've hand an amazingly great run, culminating in the election of one BHO, the all time indicator of a people completely devoid of understanding how the world actually works.