It's about trust, stupid.

It goes without saying that there is a balance between individual freedom and national security, not to mention that leadership requires some level of secrecy when dealing with international affairs. Americans are divided on the recent revelation of data collection by our government and that is not surprising. Generally, it appears that most of us are willing to give the leaders in our government the freedom to exercise covert operations so long as we feel that those operations are in our best interest and that we can trust the leaders statements regarding their actions. But others feel the government should keep no secrets from its citizens are willing to go to great lengths to assure their individual privacy.

Just for the record, and irrelevant to my point, I believe Edward Snowden is a criminal for leaking national security secrets and a traitor for revealing any of that information to our adversaries.

It might have been easier for Obama to defend the merits of the data collection program had our trust in government and their motivations not been repeatedly called into question over one scandal after another.

It is then, this lack of credibility which is straining President Obama's administration as they attempt to defend their use of the data collection program for the purpose of protecting Americans. On the heals of intentional deception by senior administration officials, including the president himself when questioned on the relentless scandals, Americans are right to question their objectives.

“If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. -Speech at Clinton, Illinois, September 8, 1854.”
Abraham Lincoln 

So what is Americas objective in Syria now that Obama has moved forward with his promise to supply the rebels with arms since his red line was crossed (a month or so ago)? Don't get me wrong, the 150 people who were killed from the use of chemical weapons proves that Assad is willing to do anything to preserve his hold on power. However, with the two year anniversary of this rebellion fast approaching and an estimated 90,000+ killed in the conflict, I have to question the timing of this intervention. Is it possible the timing is political; to divert attention from the continuing scandals plaguing the White House? Certainly it is not based on previous "red line" statements, the administration walked those back over a month ago once the use of chemical weapons was proven.

Are we to believe that our entry into this conflict is based on humanitarian reasons considering our inaction for two years while over 89,000 people were slaughtered? Or for some unstated, specific, geo-political purpose? And have we prepared for the alliance of the anti-American cast being assembled in Syria?  While Obama's actions and policies led the Syrian rebels from behind (followed), Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other enemies have taken up positions which will pit them directly against our efforts. The fact that we do not know who all of the rebels are, assures that any support we provide, money, food or weapons, will wind up in the hands of our enemies. Throw Israel into the equation - it is right in the middle - and America is facing a much more difficult and complicated situation than existed when the uprising began.

Through ongoing communication with Moscow, Iran has a plan. What is our plan? Do we assist in the downfall of Assad and then abandon the Syrian people as they attempt to rebuild their nation under the intimidation of Muslim extremists? Have you checked on Egypt lately? Libya?

American support for the Syrian people is long overdue. Before it is provided, and we have had two years to put a plan together, we must have clearly defined objectives articulated to congress and the people who give them their power, us. To enter a war without appropriate and clear objectives and under suspicion of doing so for the purpose of 'changing the American conversation' puts our leaders in the same category as Snowden.

It is about trust!