I understand your position but I think the president set forth sound reasons for going in last night: (1) there is a real humanitarian crisis and he used the term "genocide"; (2) Iraq asked for help; and (3) we can help (at least in the short term).  I would add, as I mentioned yesterday, that the other reason I believe is material here is that we helped shape the circumstances in which Iraq finds itself now, and I guess I subscribe to the Colin Powell (you break it you own it doctrine).

This is the best I can do right now and I really do believe the topic deserves better consideration, so sorry for that.  I'm reading Samantha Powers book right now (coincidentally, and which explains why I haven't gotten to Michael's book yet because it's . . . comprehensive so to speak), and I'm particularly interested in our legal and moral obligations in cases of genocide.  I will try to add the link later, but this came up in yesterday's White House press conference, and  press secretary Josh Earnest was asked and was unable to say whether the prevention of genocide was a "core" American foreign policy interest.  [Edited to add that Earnest, in fairness, was probably not authorized to respond to the question, or believed in good faith that it was not something that he was authorized to address.]

Finally, I'm not happy about potential air strikes, because the fact is that there is a real chance under the circumstances for "mission creep".  I think we all should be candid, particularly the president going forward, about how that might occur.  But I cannot help supporting him for the reasons I touched on above.

Edited to add this link that reviews the press conference colloquy on genocide that I refer to above and also touches on dilemma for Earnest as press sec.  The link includes the video from the conference too.  Check it out.