[WS:] I agree with the low cost part, but there are things that don't quite fit that pattern. The main of them is Obama's foot dragging to get into this mess - relatively speaking, that is, as compared to Bush who was calling for a war from the get go, or for that matter Hollande. I do not think it is just a difference in rhetoric, it really looks like O does not have much appetite for another adventure. The fact that sending a few Cruise missiles by the way of Syria carries a very low political cost may be the reason for O to go that way - but it certainly does not look like he is spearheading this adventure. There is far more interest in the region to intervene militarily, especially by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but these folks prefer to do it with the US hands rather than on their own.
I also agree that the reasons provided in the supplied link don't quite fit the picture either. Syria is a small fry - oilwise and otherwise- so I do not see how it may possibly threaten the dollar-denominated oil trade. If anything, it is a proxy for Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and China, which may offer a mild incentive for the US hawks to kick its ass to show who is the boss, as you suggest.
Regarding Carrol's view about left's position of unqualified No - it goes without saying. But I am also trying to understand the reasons why the other side is doing what we oppose.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."