?

The military is only successful as a PEACEFUL deterrent if your enemy believes you actually have the will to use it. I understand the American people have no appetite for war. I further understand that another war would be a further burden on an already sluggish economy. But telling Assad and the elements of the Syrian resistance that we'd like to work with that U.S. troops and aircraft will not under any circumstances be deployed in Syria - or the Taliban that we have a hard withdrawal date from Afghanistan - is shamelessly pandering for votes while discouraging our allies and reassuring our enemies that there are boundaries to the extent we are willing to use our military capabilities. This is projecting the very kind of weakness Romney was chiding Obama for - it diminishes our strength and invites our enemies to become more aggressive. Regardless of what you are prepared to do in your own mind, as far as the world is concerned, the response must always be that all options are on the table. It is the strongest aid to a diplomatic solution and averting war. I came away from this debate very disappointed with the political pandering of both candidates. I saw two men much more concerned with winning an election than making the world a more safe place to live in. Agree or disagree?