The New York Times editors write of the Obama administration's plans to bomb Syria and increase support for the armed rebels:

The administration is still committed to establishing peace and avoiding a complete collapse of the Syrian state, which could result in even greater chaos. It is not clear that there is a strategy to accomplish that, especially if military action is undertaken and the administration moves forward with plans for increasing support for the so-called moderate opposition, whose unity and effectiveness remain in doubt.

There is a term in psychology for this: "cognitive dissonance".

How can it be true that the Obama administration is "committed to establishing peace" while at the same time it has been arming and training the rebels whose ranks include al-Qaeda affilated extremist groups and plans on bombing the country?

How can it be true that the administration is committed to "avoiding a complete collapse of the Syrian state" when it is the goal of the rebels it is supporting to overthrow the Syrian government?

Obviously, the Obama administration is neither committed to peace nor to preventing a collapse of the Syrian state. Naturally, though, the Times isn't going to come out and directly say that. It just doesn't make the U.S. sound as good.