America: Not Being Taken Syriously

From Jed Babbin's column:   "The only reason for America to use its military power is to respond to or prevent an attack on us or our allies. To state the obvious, we have no duty to protect Syrians or residents of any nation that isn’t a real ally such as Israel (and to the exclusion of almost everyone else). May Obama have the same luck as British Prime Minister David Cameron, who — submitting a war resolution to Parliament last week — became the first Brit PM to be turned down since 1782."
Wall Street Journal editorial:  "Mr. Obama can read the polls, which show that most of the public opposes intervention in Syria. Around the world he has so far mobilized mainly a coalition of the unwilling, with even the British Parliament refusing to follow his lead. By comparison, George W. Bush on Iraq looks like Metternich."

I'm very disappointed in Boehner and Cantor for their spinelessness in going along with Obama on this, and yet I'm not surprised. They haven't exactly been strong leaders for the Republicans.

On the radio they were having a contest to come up with ideas for the U.S. war in Syria.  How about "Operation Laughingstock", "Operation Big Ego",  "Operation What Me Worry", "Operation Man-Caused Disaster", or "Operation It's Bush's Fault"?