Will Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama spark a world war with a strike on Syria?

In 2009, President Obama won the Nobel Peace prize. For what? No one really quite knows — but he won it nonetheless. Now, with allegations that Bashar Assad’s military forces have used chemical weapons on the rebels, media outlets everywhere are reporting that a Western attack on Syria will happen “within days.” The question becomes: Will the Nobel Peace Prize winner help spark a world war?

Most estimates tally the death toll in Syria at 100,000. For years now, Assad has been slaughtering the “rebels,” but 1,300 die because of chemical weapons and suddenly the United States must get involved? (Don’t ask who the rebels are because no one can give you a definitive answer.)

Ask yourself this question: What did Assad have to gain by using chemical weapons? He already killed tens of thousands with impunity by just using conventional weapons. There was nothing for him to gain. The only people who would benefit by a chemical weapons attack are … the rebels.

How bizarre is it that a conservative like myself now agrees with Dennis Kucinich regarding Syria?

Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda’s air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.

The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad’s regime.

“So what, we’re about to become Al Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ — that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”

The comments echo warnings from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against legislation to arm the Syrian rebels earlier this year by saying such a move would boost al Qaeda.

The Associated Press was on the mark with its recent coverage of the President, saying that his administration appeared to “veer from crisis to crisis without a broader strategy.” Indeed, a talented orator can win elections by talking out of both sides of his mouth, but actually governing — displaying leadership — requires tough decisions. Instead of publicly admitting that many of the tools George W. Bush utilized post 9/11 to protect American interests at home and abroad were necessary, Mr. Obama opted not to apologize for demonizing the man while continuing (and often expanding) Bush-era programs with greater secrecy. Instead of capturing combatants on the field of battle, Mr. Obama kills them with drones. Instead of spying on terrorists, the NSA now collects “meta data” and the emails of innocent Americans who (to quote Sen. Feinstein)might become a terrorist in the future.” The result of Mr. Obama’s Whac-A-Mole approach to foreign policy has in many ways come to a head with the Syrian debacle.

The great thing about being a college professor is that all of your theories can be wrong, but you will still get paid and no one can pin the blame for the real world consequences of your ideas on your shoulders. The not-so-great thing about being a former college professor who happens to be the president? The real world is often far divorced from the kind of conclusions bandied about inside the walls of the teachers lounge.

There will be unintended consequences for any U.S. bombing run on Syria, and it’s a good bet that they will not be the kinds of things Nobel Peace Prize winners want talked about in history books. With “rebels” largely composed of Islamic extremists, the wise thing to do at this juncture would not involve ballistic missiles raining down in Syrian territory.

Related: John McCain: The Syrian rebels are ‘moderates’ — if you ignore the cannibal in the corner