August is deep into the silly season, and the foofawraw over President Obama's season-appropriate sartorial styling the other day is definitely a part of that. Why yes, he wore a light-colored tailored ensemble to give a speech. Yes, I have my doubts about the suit, but not the color, actually--the pants pleats. He's a slender individual, and while it is true that pleats balance out the top and bottom halves of a suit on the seriously slim, the simple truth is that flat-fronts make a cleaner line. There, I said it, and I'm glad I did.
But no matter how I feel about pants, I'm not actually angry over Obama's clothing decision, as Rep. Peter King seems to be. If I got genuinely angry when some guy didn't dress the way I preferred, my husband might be sleeping out of doors. As it is, I think there is a gap, generally speaking, between sincerity and passion in most political rhetoric. I can forgive King for seeming passionate about the foreign policy aspect of Obama's speech, but bagging on the suit? Sincerely? That seems trivial no matter how you preface it. I don't think folks ranging in attire from camos to dishdashas are seriously valuing our President's fashion choices over what he's actually telegraphing about our policy.
That said, little was actually telegraphed about our policy, over and above not necessarily having one regarding ISIL in Syria, but that I can't even gasp at that. Sometimes, it happens that all the strategies suck regarding some task or goal. The degree of suckage can even be sufficient to make one reconsider the necessity of facing the goal. Attacking ISIL via Syria is like that. The equities involved regarding time, tools, manpower, political will, etc, are all involved in any serious political calculation regarding doing more--but still--exit strategy? How do we know when we've bombed Isil up from the middle ages? When do we feel safe leaving off? Or are we duty bound to grind on forever?
It all has to be considered before saying there's a "strategy" worth having.