Are you confused about the Mideast? Like most Americans, do you think the president has done a bad job, but don't have a clue as to why you think so? Let me help sort things out.
First, look at a globe and see if you can find Syria, Iraq and Iran. If you can't, then relax in the peaceful knowledge that you shouldn't have an opinion. You can blithely regurgitate the banalities issuing from whatever political talk shows you happen to watch without the least concern for meaning.
If you passed that test, next mark the following statements true or false. The enemy is Syria. The enemy is Iran. The enemy is Iraq.
If you marked any of those statements as either true or false, then you're not qualified to have an opinion. The correct answer for all the statements is: it depends or, in the alternative, maybe. Chill, read Orwell's "1984" and never watch another political talk show or listen to a politician.
If you correctly identified the political maxim at work in the previous test, that is that the enemy today is not necessarily the enemy tomorrow, then proceed to pick the "good guy" from the following list: ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Nouri al-Maliki, Darrell Issa, Bashar al-Assad.
I hope you didn't pick Darrell Issa because that's the only name you recognize. The correct answer is that there are no "good guys" in the Mideast, including the Republican congressman who frequently behaves like a Mideast potentate. If you picked any of the names, you lack knowledge of Mideast political machinations and should not hold an opinion.
Next, true or false: attacking ISIS will help America's enemy Assad. That's too easy. I'll assume you know the right answer.
Finally, if you passed all the previous tests, identify the general who will lead America's next invasion of a Mideast country: General Qassen Suleiman or General George Patton. If you picked Suleiman then, congratulations, you recognize that this leader of the Iranian Quds may be our ally and you have sufficient knowledge to hold an opinion.