I do not say this as a supporter of President Obama’s proposed strike. I oppose it. Never has the president said what might come after his limited attack on Assad; never has the president provided a comprehensive approach to Syria or to the region that would secure American interests and limit the ability of radical Islam to acquire WMD; never has he seemed to have a clear sense of purpose and mission in Syria and beyond. Why grant war-making authority to a leader so feckless, a warrior so reluctant? Half-measures do not serve the American interest, and “proportional” force does not end conflicts. It prolongs them.

What I cannot stomach is the humiliation of my country on the world stage. Even the liberal Joe Klein admits that the presidential response to the Aug. 21 chemical attack in Damascus “has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed.” If Obama believed he already possessed constitutional power to strike Syria, he should have struck immediately, and have been ready to justify his actions. If he believed that the authority of Congress was required, he should have been willing to accept the verdict of Congress, which is clearly no.

But to adopt with such alacrity an improvised and cynical proposal by the Russians and Assad, and to spin that proposal as a victory, and as somehow his own, and to look paralyzed as the Russian autocrat uses the New York Times as a platform to spread conspiracy theories and lecture us on America, democracy, and international responsibility, is an embarrassment and an affront.