Will Obama Go It Alone in Syria? Britain Votes Against Military Action

In what might be viewed as an unusual move to Americans in light of the current and previous administration, Great Britain actually involved Parliament in the decision-making process over whether to lend support in a military attack on Syria that many feel is soon to come to fruition.  Now, they have voted against it.  France is engaging in a similar process…that’s right, a process… that should unfold either by the week’s end or early in the next week.  Both countries had urged American President Barack Obama to hold off on pushing the issue any further so they could have time to follow their due process.

Any day now, this could be the scene.
Any day now, this could be the scene.

In America, of course, Congress is actually pining with the President to give them a chance to be involved.  So far, President Obama has made no sign that he gives a flying crap what they think, and he has ordered the military to get in position and make ready to go ahead with an attack at any time.  Now, with frequent ally Britain opting out of the potential campaign, the world is waiting to see if France will be influenced by their neighbor’s decision.  After all, France did call out for action last week in the wake of the completely unproven but nonetheless “solid” evidence that Syria perpetrated a chemical weapons attack on its own people, but now it seems that their may be divisions within their governmental system as well.

The question now is simple.  Will President Obama go it alone if he has to?  The answer is more complicated.  It was going to be controversial enough if America attacked Syria without common, longtime allies defecting.  Now, it gets even more controversial from multiple angles.  In one school of thought, you might say that Britain’s stance might make Obama think twice about what this will look like in the international spotlight.  On the other hand, you could also say that President Obama should not be making decisions based on what another country thinks; if he feels that military action is the only viable solution to the current situation, then he should be ready to act with or without Britain’s blessing.

There’s also the buildup.  The mainstream media has spent the last week bolstering support (or at least attempting to do so) for an attack, and now, our forces have been purposefully moved into position.  Obama has repeatedly stated that there must be consequences to the alleged actions of the Syrian government.  He also indicated just last year that a chemical weapons attack would be officially crossing the line.  That’s right, he actually specifically called out this situation a year earlier and outlined what the response would be.  So, basically, if Obama does nothing now, it all becomes an elaborate poker bluff, but no one fell for it.  Meanwhile, the international community is not even sold on the idea that Syria was even responsible for the attack.  Just today, it was reported by some outlets that investigators have admitted there is no “smoking gun” to indicate that Syria is the guilty party.  Yet, Secretary of State John Kerry vehemently implored us to believe in the accusations, calling Syrian responsibility “undeniable.”

Sounds like we don’t have our story straight?

So it sounds like a case of President Obama being damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.  Which do you pick?  And why?