HAS THE UK TAKEN THE WIND OUT OF OBAMA'S SYRIAN SAILS?

Faced with a dead-end in the United Nations and the inability to find even a single ally to form a mini-coalition, President Barack Obama would seem to have backed himself into a corner with regard to his determination to undertake military action in Syria.

Yesterday's reluctance evidenced in the U.K. parliament made it even less likely that France or Germany would follow Obama's lead for a strike against Syria.  Unfortunately for the president, his dithering and delaying over the last two years has cost him a great deal of credibility, not only with America's allies, but also with foreign enemies, who increasingly see the U.S. as lacking in resolve.

It was two years ago that President Obama let it be known that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad should remove himself from power.  That was followed one year later by the infamous "red-line" statement, in which the president informed the world that, if Syria transgressed by using chemical weapons, the U.S. would retaliate.  With evidence piling up to substantiate the use of sarin gas in Syria, President Obama, it appears, is a day late and a dollar short, neither convincing America's allies nor the American people that moving against the Syrian regime would be in their best interests.

While Secretary of State John Kerry  - the same John Kerry, who during the Vietnam era infamously threw his medals over the White House fence - pontificated today on why the evidence would compel this country to military action, speculation continued to mount that President Obama might unilaterally choose to order our armed forces into action, totally bereft of any sort of allied backup.

No matter how the analysts at Two for Texas have tried to slice this thing, it is difficult not to find barefaced inconsistency.  For example, how was it that an administration so gung-ho to hit Syria was so slow on the draw with the Benghazi abomination?  Why is it that, in a time of military draw-down and sequestration, the administration is bound and determined to initiate an action that, once again, might draw us into a Middle East quagmire?  If the Syrian regime has contravened its moral standing and has shown itself to be a pariah, has the administration consulted Syria's neighbors on the matter?  It might be imagined that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Oman and Jordan might wish to bring some pressure to bear on their renegade neighbor.  So far, we have heard nothing of that order.

Hopefully, before charging into action like the proverbial bull in the china-shop, cooler heads will counsel caution and patience.  What we have seen thus far seems to be a repetition of past diplomatic blunders.  And that brings to mind Edward Klein's best selling biography of President Obama, which was called "The Amateur."  Alas, dear readers, the Syrian affair has, so far, had a very amateurish feel about it, so amateurish in fact that someone, somewhere might be feeling a bit embarrassed.