The airstrikes in Syria seem premature, placing the military horse before the political cart.  Bombing ISIS is a little like squishing mercury--it just moves elsewhere. Although, it probably will be a boon to the Toyota pick-up truck sales division.  

The alleged Sunni country ( Saudi, UAE, Qatar) involvement will help blunt the US lead, but in Syria the civil war is a sectarian one. Gain Sunni love, Lose Shia.  And, where is Turkey, Sunni and a member of NATO,  especially in curbing the transport of ISIS oil and hindering arms running.

Here's a bit (hope her good grammar isn't a total turn-off):

So, last night I noted that the array of friends and enemies in our bombing campaign in Syria is ... complicated. It's even more complicated than the fact that our close friend Saudi Prince Bandar (aka Bandar Bush) is implicated in creating ISIS as a way to defeat Assad. Today we're seeing more reports about the shadowy group called Khorasan which is allegedly even worse than ISIS which is worse than al-Qaeda which is actually the group behind Khorasan.

According to a source familiar with the situation, U.S. officials have been familiar with Khorasan for months. And Rep. Peter King, the former Homeland Security Committee chair, said that members of Congress have "known about it for several months."
"I'm surprised it [the name] even came out," King said. "It was supposed to be top secret, classified, and it wasn't until last week that an AP story had it in there. But we weren't supposed to talk about it."

"The intelligence community has known about it ... [Khorasan] are extremely lethal and dangerous," King said.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said "we have been briefed on the Khorasan group for some time."

I don't know why they have inflated the threat of ISIS over this other group which some are saying is the real threat to the west, being al Qaeda and all, but they have. (According to the article, some people doubt that this group is actually more dangerous than either ISIS or al Qaeda ... oy.) Certainly it makes little sense when you consider they have used the 2001 AUMF as their legal rationale for acting --- it specifically requires an al Qaeda connection, which they are saying is closely linked to Khorasan while the connection to ISIS is much more vague. (Remember all the blather about how al Qaeda kicked ISIS out of the clubhouse because it was too brutal?)

Anyway, when you see this kind of contradictory and confusing rationalizing after the bombing campaign has begun, it's probably a good idea to be skeptical that it's all on the up and up. It's happening, whether we like it or not, and the American people seem to be on board.  Those videos were a master stroke.  But we really have no idea what's really going on.

Moreover, a back-up is the AUMF of 2002 regarding  a"continuing threat by Iraq," in which Congressional intent involves Saddam and WMD. The Administration only recently asked Congress to repeal the AUMF of 2002 noting that it was no longer necessary.

At best, this seems to be a legal stretch. Congress authorized about $500 million to fund the training and arming of Syrian "moderates," but has not provided a new AUMF in Syria or Iraq. And, Congress is adjourned and, apparently, views a new AUMF as being as radioactive to their electoral prospects as many of them once thought  for Saddam's WMD.  While the Administration claims they do not need any additional authority, they would also welcome Congressional action that is to their liking.

It seems to me, that the Administration's legal posture is, indeed, stretched to the breaking point.  However, having said that, it is my view that any Congressional action should be avoided like the fearful plague that has overtaken so many of them.

At this point, a Miss Lindsey-type congressional authorization at this point could emerge that would warm the cockles of Cheney's implanted heart.  An AUMF that a future administration could cite for at least another decade--long after not only ISIS is gone, but Syria, as well.

(Reuters) - A Syrian government minister said U.S.-led air strikes against militants are going in the "right direction" because the government had been informed before they started and they were not hitting civilians or Syrian military targets....

...The United States said on Tuesday that Washington's envoy to the United Nations had told her Syrian counterpart air strikes would take place, but it has ruled out coordinating with Assad, whom Washington sees as part of the problem.