I think he's just playing dumb here.

Either that, or he really has excised all the constructive critics from his inner circle.  It's tempting to live in an echo chamber, but like the Naked King, it's helpful for someone to point out how you're coming across to others...

“We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said, in response to questions about when he is prepared to begin military action in Syria, and, if not, why not?

Rarely has a president spoken so plainly.  “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” he said.

The suggestion that “we’re about to go full scale on an elaborate strategy for defeating ISIL . . . that we’ll start moving forward imminently and somehow Congress, still out of town, is going to be left in the dark, that’s not what’s going to happen.” ISIL is one of several acronyms referring to the Islamic State.

So far, the president, the politicians in power, and the press cannot even agree on what to call our latest enemy in need of bombing correction.  Is it the Islamic State, ISIS or ISIL?  The president uses ISIL, but nobody is following his lead.    This inconsistency has really gone on long enough now...

Either the president should use the name the press and others do, or he should put some of those persuasive speaking skills to work that helped get him elected, and see if he can at least unite people behind what to call our new enemy, no matter if we ever get past that to deciding on effective action.

The president said in a White House news conference, he has asked the Pentagon to prepare options while he puts together a broad, long-term plan including military, political, economic and diplomatic aspects and continues recruiting partner countries in the region and beyond to help carry it out.

“We’re not going to do that alone,” he said of the still-in-the-works strategy. “We’re going to have to do that with other partners.”

Many of those potential partners said they remain in the dark about what Obama has in mind, and some have expressed impatience about the length of time the administration is taking to figure it out.

The man loooves golf. Get over it, already "potential partners".
(It's because he's black, and not caddying the course, isn't it?)

“There is definitely more of an attitude [within the administration] to get involved” in the wake of recent militant advances in Syria and Iraq and last week’s execution of an American journalist, said one senior official from the region. But “no one has had a conversation with us as to what that means.”
“When a superpower, the superpower, is reluctant in developing policy, it’s not only about leadership, it’s about having a coherent approach to crises,” said another regional official.

“The ball is in the U.S. court,” said a third.

Senior officials from four Middle Eastern states spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid public indications of disquiet with Obama.

Don't do anything to bring the disquiet!
Once you bring it, you bought it, and we can't afford it.
Repeat: do not bring the disquiet!

Obama insisted Thursday that he would not be rushed into the broader strategy.

We will sell no wine, before it's time!

The president spoke before a meeting with his top national security team Thursday that he said would be limited to the discussion of continuing operations in Iraq.

Next week, he said, he will consult NATO allies on larger plans for Syria, Iraq and the Islamic State at an alliance summit in Wales, Obama said. Immediately afterward, he is sending Secretary of State John F. Kerry to the region to meet with Middle Eastern leaders.

Because everyone knows how effective John is!
Obama, Kerry and military leaders have spoken repeatedly in recent weeks of the need for a coalition, in the context of a partnership strategy the president outlined more than a year ago to combat terrorist threats beyond al-Qaeda, and potentially far more dangerous.

Once the strategy is determined, Obama said, “it’s going to be important for Congress to know what that is, in part because it may cost some money.”

Nooo... you think?
More than a pocketful of change?

He rejected criticism from some lawmakers for not seeking congressional approval for the limited Iraq operation. “As commander in chief, I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently,” Obama said.

Beyond that, he said, “there is no point in my asking for action on part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.”

“It is my intention that Congress has to have some buy in as representatives of the American people,” Obama said. “And by the way, the American people need to hear what that strategy is.

By the way?  It sounds like the American people are an afterthought. But hey, if you ever turn up a viable policy, do share it with us. We'd all love to see the plan...

A majority of American public opinion has been resolutely opposed to U.S. military intervention in Syria.

I'm bolding this one because heck, how many people supported our bombing campaign in Libya either, and how did that one turn out, ladies? Look and learn, look and learn...

Unlike the partisan lines along which they have split on other issues, Congress has been divided on Syria, with many Democrats opposed to any return to war in the Middle East. Some Republicans have shared that concern, while others have pressed for more military action.

But both Republicans and Democrats agree that they want to be asked.

People want a voice in what affects them.
People want a say in how their money is being spent.
People want to win, not to drop bombs and run, and watch as these countries are continually overrun, once America does the dirty work of destabilizing them.

If you can't win, by all means Mr. President, keep on playing dumb and buying time. We don't need another war, can't afford one really, with all these mini-wars popping up here at home, and the division building...

Now is not the time to take the country, again, into war. We're not united, we're not supportive, and heck if you don't know the players from the scorecard, why should we be bombing them again? To help, to save lives?

Chances are, if we drop bombs in Syria without good intelligence on the ground, we'll be playing a game much like Israel, with the accompanying civilian casualties. Let's not kill any more people to help convert them to democracy. Let's keep our military hardware out of it. We're not being invited into Syria, and it sounds like the president really has no idea what is going on, or how to effectively combat ISIL or ISIS or the IS or whatever it is we're calling them.

To take action now would be a fool's errand.
I think Barack Obama is playing the fool, so he's not responsible for more deaths on his watch. Will his strategy work? I don't know, but I'm thinking at this point, it's pretty much all he's got, so fingers crossed, let's hold the line...