It’s frustrating to see so many pundits spinning wildly while trying to explain seemingly contradictory opinions between President Obama and his team of advisors.
Specifically, the term: “the advisors are out front of the president” – when describing international, or foreign policy, positions of the U.S. administration.
 
President Obama is consistent, if not predictable, when it comes to his overarching approach to foreign policy; there’s no inconsistency.
President Obama is a “Domestic President”; the entire purpose of his campaign was to lead fundamental change *internally* within the U.S.
The international developments are “over there” or distractions to his entire presidency – which is solely based on changing domestic policies and therefore the construct of America as a constitutional republic.
It does not matter to President Obama when his foreign policy advisors are at a divergent position or opinion to his current place or mindset.   The international ramifications of his engagements are purely viewed through the prism of whether or not the advised position provides him greater or lesser currency within the U.S. to carryout the fundamental change.

When the Pentagon or Intelligence community are espousing an opinion, or calling for an action plan for President Obama, he uses their contrast to measure whether or not such engagements will grant him a greater ability internally.
If their recommended action adds to his domestic currency, or is polled favorably, he will do it.   Again, the goal is to increase his leverage over his domestic agenda.
Hence, the longer term consequences, or outcomes from interventionist activity, are secondary to the decisions reached.
The domestic policy is a “Top Tier” concern, foreign policy is various degrees of diminished value below that.
If the action taken overseas is viewed favorably internally, which consequently adds currency to his influence within domestic policy, he will take that action.   If it does not, he will not.   It really is that simple.
Many people, usually his detractors, mistakenly attribute a negative trait of Obama looking at everything through a “political prism”.   This is an incorrect view.   Obama looks at everything through the prism of: “does this aid my influence domestically“?
Such is the job of people like Denis McDonough to determine.
If McDonough advises Obama that more currency can be added to his internal influence by taking the advice of Secretary Hagel or John Brennan, then he will be more likely to take that action.
If the advice is antithetical to his domestic influence then he will not.
If you want to understand Obama all you really need to do is look at whether his Office stands to gain more or less currency within the policy issue being discussed.
It might be a singular action, like a rescue attempt, or it might be a larger action like bombing Libya; regardless of the consequence the denominator is: does ‘doing it’ provide him more or less leverage to continue the fundamental change.
The change that HE BELIEVES IN.