Can I Get A Waffle To Go With That Cruise Missile?

The gathering pace of supposed plans to start lobbing cruise missiles at the Assad Regime in Syria hit a snag today, as British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had summoned Parliament back to debate possible military intervention in Syria was hit with an unexpected defeat as a motion backing the use of force 'if necessary' went down 285-272 in the House of Commons today.

All of this is only adding on growing pressue on the Obama Administration to allow a similar debate and possibly a vote in Congress.  The White House has said that it's going to brief Congress but skepticism is growing by the hour and memes like this courtesy of GOP Flavor of the Month Senator Ted Cruz of Texas only underline how difficult such a vote and/or possibly a debate should be.

As usual, I'm a little torn.  The International Relations student in me feels like a response of some kind is necessary.  You can't just toss sarin gas around and thumb your nose at every international convention against chemical and biological weapon out there- and plus, if we're going to draw red lines and the other guy crosses them, there need to be consequences.  Otherwise, we just look ridiculous.   And make no mistake, if we don't walk away from this with a tangible win, no one is going to take us seriously anywhere anymore.  We'll look ridiculous.  We'll embolden Assad, Iran and Hezbollah- three regimes the world could do without, in my opinion and we'll just prove that the President's lofty rhetoric is just that:  rhetoric.

That said:  the time to intervene in Syria was this time last year- if ever we were going to do it, it was then.  There was a window where we could have found effective allies to work with against Assad and a no-fly zone, if applied properly could have been a real help to the rebel groups.  Now, it's just too murky.   No one is sure who is allied with who and people get queasy at the thought of arming Islamist fighters that have loose or not so loose affiliations with Al-Qaeda.

So, what are we going to do then?  I don't know.  Probably waffle for a week or so and then ending up doing something completelty toothless and utterly feckless and impotent.  Because that seems to be the overall direction our foreign policy is taking at the moment.   I know that there are good arguments for intervention on either side but what's frustrating is it seems like nobody wants to shit or get off the pot.  If we're going to do it, then saddle up and let's go.  Let's get it over with.  If we're going to have a vote in Congress and a debate, well, call their asses back to work and game on, people.

Instead we waffle.  This isn't leadership.  It's waiting for your breakfast order at iHop.  Time to make a decision and own that sucker.

UPDATED: Hmmmmm...  seen on Twitter:

1855 last time UK PM defeated on war & peace in Parliament. Lord Aberdeen lost vote on Crimean War. Also led coalition. Resigned day later!
— Jon Williams (@WilliamsJon) August">https://twitter.com/WilliamsJon/statuses/373229212599336960">August 29, 2013

I'd be surprised if Cameron did resign, but you never know.   

And before anyone mentions it:  yes, I know we watched as Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja and didn't do squat about it.  I know we ignored Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War.  The question is, do we have a moral imperative to help the Syrian people now?  Should we?  More resolute leadership on our part would have made a choice and owned that sucker by now.   I'm not saying either decision would be wrong, I'm saying we need to get off the fence and do something!  That's what I find frustrating about this whole thing.