The threat in Syria, or rather our involvement, continues to grow on Capitol Hill. The President this week vowed to take the potential for action to the US Congress, where he is hoping to win approval for his actions. Insiders, however, say that with or without approval, the President still plans to take action via bombings or another military route that will not directly deploy a large amount of men on the ground.

The tide in Washington is mixed on whether or not the President will win the approval that he seeks. House Republican Leader Jon Boehner (R-OH) has said that he will support the action, with Democratic ring leader Nancy Pelosi echoing the claims. She asserted that the President did not in fact create the proverbial red line but it was a sense of “humanity” that did that. The threat, then, cannot be ignored and action needs to be taken.

Republicans and Democrats alike are wavering in the stance on Syria, with no one side truly sticking together. Sure, Democrats want to follow their faithful leader into battle (or make that effort at least) but there is still the issue of constituency to deal with. Public sentiment regarding the crisis is strongly favoring the belief that the US should not get involved in the conflict. Many are still war wary from the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, too, leaders are trying to come to terms with how to be so against military involvement in the Middle East in the past decade but now supporting it.

Time will tell where the experts and US fall in their actions. Many, including England’s officials and Russian leaders alike, are encouraging the US to stay out. Whether or not the President listens, however, has yet to be seen. Chances are, though, that he will get his way one way or the other and that off-the-cuff comment he made will have real political and foreign relations policy consequences.