"...What Drives Our Foreign Policy Actually Really Does Drive Our Foreign Policy..."

Gotta give credit to Facebook.

Before it came along, there was no way of discovering, as we have subsequently discovered, how many Americans are experts in everything from parenting to medicine/healthcare to the perfect recipe for macaroni and cheese.

And, of course, let's not leave out the number one area of armchair acuity, social media speaking...

...global politics, including, of course, but not limited to American foreign policy.

The recent handy single serving size cans of red, white and whup ass opened up on Syria and Afghanistan, in combination with the bad ass badminton being played with North Korea's fat supreme leader guy in a little coat, Kim Jong Un, has turned the puppies, if not the dogs, of war loose in the global backyard and, inevitably, generated a springtime-esque downpour of say-so, savvy and second guessing from all those way less than pro posting pundits who somehow, enigmatically, know just exactly what needs to be done to end the threat of possible nuclear confrontation and re-establish calm and co-operation among the diverse and conflicted nations of the world but still can't seem to get a handle on what to do at a four way stop.

Snark and/or sarcasm duly noted and conceded, notwithstanding, there is one fact truth about the seemingly intricate, even intellectually impenetrable labyrinth of foreign policy in general, but in this nation, in particular, that is a legitimate fact truth.

It ain't really all that complicated.

And, pressed to offer up a meaningful metaphor to make the case, try this.

American foreign policy, at least as its practiced in the current configuration, is like buying a car.

Only two things matter and only those two things ultimately factor into the decision to buy or not to buy.

More on that shortly.

Julian Zelizer is a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University and a New America fellow and the author of "The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society." He also co-hosts the "Politics & Polls" podcast. 

In an op/ed published online this weekend, he makes a compelling case for the hypocrisy at work in the political back and forth regarding America's latest adventures aboard the ship of state. 

Democrats don't really have much ground to stand on when they criticize President Trump for flexing too much muscle on national security. The Democrats, along with their opponents, have been part of the bipartisan push for expanding executive power since World War II. 

But now some are up in arms about the Trump administration's recent missile strikes against Syria. 

Given that there is no clear threat to the national interest, they argue that Trump needs to request authority from Congress to undertake this mission. Several Democrats have insisted that if the president doesn't seek permission, then he is exceeding his constitutional power.

Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, praised the missile strikes in Syria as an appropriate response to the regime's use of chemical weapons. But

he also said

that "military force against Assad can only continue in the long term with congressional approval." Virginia Democrat and former vice presidential candidate Sen.

Tim Kaine called the strike in Syria "unlawful"

since Trump had not obtained approval from Congress.

But presidents from both parties have made a series of decisions that gradually weakened the role of Congress in shaping national security decisions while granting the White House much greater leeway to decide when and how to use America's military power. 

The first thing to go was the declaration of war. Starting with President Harry Truman's actions in Korea, commanders in chief have deployed troops overseas without requesting a formal declaration of war from Congress, as FDR had done in 1941. Presidents have requested ceremonial resolutions of support for using military force from Congress, as President Lyndon Johnson did in August 1964 with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but then proceeded to shape and expand military operations without really involving the legislative branch. 

Although President Obama was more sensitive than most to the impact of this approach, he didn't do much to move away from the wartime framework used to fight terrorism. 

Obama followed the plan adopted by President George W. Bush after 9/11 when Congress granted the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." That authorization has been used to justify drone strikes. 

As the nation discovered with the Edward Snowden leaks about surveillance, Congress has generally allowed the national security state to operate with a relatively free hand in the name of protecting the homeland.

When presidents have used air power and special operations forces in response to perceived specific threats abroad, congressional pushback has been rare. 

Some members of Congress have publicly criticized the White House or threatened to use the power of the purse to limit use of the military. But rarely have they done much to actually prevent presidents from taking those kinds of steps. 

The fact that Democrats in Congress have joined Republicans in this embrace of executive power does not mean the legislative branch does not have immense authority. 

Congress retains power over military spending, Congress has the ability to investigate presidential misconduct and Congress has the ability to conduct aggressive oversight on executive agencies. In addition, members of Congress have the power to command media attention and cause problems for presidents as they undertake these missions.

When Democrats blast Trump, it's hard for many Americans -- including liberals who have a genuine problem with what the President is doing -- to take them seriously. Both parties have been participants in vastly expanding executive power on national security and complicit in standing by as this occurred. 

Politicians in both parties have created a presidency with immense authority to use military force without any substantive checks on power.

For the patience challenged and/or insight impaired in our audience, here's the essence of, to which all of that boils down.

My plan to bomb the hell out of something or someone is a master stroke of strategy that will result in a victory for truth, justice and the American way. Your plan to bomb the hell of out of something or someone is a reckless and potentially catastrophic abuse of authority and will likely result in the end of life on the planet as we know it.

SEP's Neato Credo #73...A politician's perspective on the rightness or wrongness of any action depends entirely on whether that politician is the do-er or the do-ee.

Right now, the do-ers are, of course, Republican and the do-ees, Democrat.

But, much like the weather, that's a temporary atmospheric condition. And when the next front blows through, be that front red or blue,  those pesky things like Congressional approval and/or common sense, such as it is at the time, will like torpedos be. Damn them things and full speed ahead.

All that will remain constant in determining who to bomb the hell out of and when to bomb the hell out of them are the two things that have determined foreign policy for this country for a very long time, now.

The same two things that it ultimately shakes out to when you decide whether or not to buy a car.

How much it costs.

And whether or not you can depend on it to take you where you intend to go.

And those two things, as a rule, are, more times than not, the province and prerogative of the he or she who will be doing the driving.

Or, you might say, the he or she who is the driv-er, as opposed to the driv-ee.

And as far as Syria, Afghanistan and Kim Jong Wamma Lamma Ding Dong are concerned, for now, there's no mistaking who the driv-er is....

....kinda orange lookin' guy with a bad hair-do.

Buckle up.