It's never a true war party if the United Kingdom isn't involved!
The Guardian reported earlier today that Prime Minister David Cameron called on Parliament to return Thursday for a vote on military action against Syria:
Cameron is expected to make a statement to MPs on Thursday outlining what No 10 has described as compelling evidence of the regime's involvement in the attack.
The prime minister wants to build a strong case linking the regime to the attack in the east Ghouta region of Damascus to ensure there is a proper legal basis for any attack. Britain and its partners are unlikely to seek a UN security council resolution authorising military action because that would be vetoed by Russia.
Some Tory dissenters oppose a general military strike, but may support a surgical attack against chemical weapon depots. The United States has stationed missile destroyers and submarines in the region as well, primarily targeting "chemical weapons units and artillery rocket units."
Earlier today, Cameron tweeted that "any response must be legal, proportionate, and specifically to deter the use of chemical weapons."
As Matt Purple wrote earlier today, the United States and Britain are both "gravitating deeper and deeper into the conflict." The pertinent question now is: What's next?
An attempted assassination of Assad? A no-fly zone after the strikes? A Normandy-like amphibioius invasion? Death stares with Putin? All of the above?
Don't forget that Germany will support military intervention if Assad did indeed use chemical weapons, which, of course, we haven't actually established yet.
One thing we do know: These strikes may deter some chemical weapon usage, but that's about it. At least we have an international force on our side this time! Pursuing a general objective that...doesn't quite exist yet.