Who decides, the US president or the agencies of the nation?

You see more of military expressions of intent from government officials on the military side and Pentagon like Dempsey, Hagel, Hayden and Kirby than from the president himself, where is Obama and what does he want? The agency guys seem free to talk and use big words that normally should be the words of the nation’s leader when addressing another sovereign state and its leader, in this case Bashar al Assad with hostile messages. Pentagon and the agencies talks about addressing IS on Syrian soil, firstly by spy planes and later ground attacks saying no need for Syrian consent. But there's a but, someone (Peter Bergen) says : "If you intervene, you may be helping Iran and Hezbollah and (al-Assad's) regime" while another one (Jim Acosta) said. "This is the very definition of choosing between the lesser of two evils", in the latter case referring to al Assad's regime as evil and the question is: who is more evil of the two, Bashar al Assad or IS? To me this is the very definition of not admitting the grave error made to go against the sitting Syrian regime and support the insurgence thus giving then ISIS the possibility to grow strong. First we had the standard excuse for intervening, the WMD one and in this case 30 tons of chemical warfare to be destroyed on a diplomatic suggestion from Russia, just think about how ridiculous, when I jog 10 kilometers I will lift/move my own body more than 16000 times; with my weight that is 90 kilos it will make a weight of 1,440,000 kilos that is 1440 tons. So irrespective of how poisonous this stuff is, it is still a laughing matter and a very bad tasting excuse (after Iraq). And the propaganda against Bashar al Assad continues, no one is going to admit: we were wrong.

 I think that die-hard stance will lead the region and the world into more misery and suffering. The US should step down and negotiate how to go about IS on Syrian territory with the sitting Syrian regime. If that is impossible, it is only a matter of time before Russia will step out of the dark.

Is a new Iraq looming? Is the great idea this time to use IS for an excuse to intervene ousting another cruel "dictator", Bashar al Assad. It look more ore less as the previous intervention, UN (read the world) back from vacations (when the region is burning hot) to have a crisis meeting on Syria/IS to function in the role of chaperone condoning an intervention just as before. Then we have the staunch US allies, France with it's dubious president Hollande as another Tony Blair and the ever ally, Australia. I don't think I am that far of from any NGO "tinkering" tank, without a tab from an upscale restaurant to pick up and with no "With eyes wide shut" diversion after the meeting either.