From Le Monde:
|Nearly two in three French (64%) are opposed to military intervention in Syria,|
an international coalition including France, according to a BVA poll for i-TéléQED and Le Parisien Today
The popular majority in France, as in the UK and U.S., opposes a military strike against Syria. At the same time, the political establishment of the three countries permits military actions by executive decision without any immediate approval, be it congressional, parliamentary or popular. Perhaps by miscalculation, David Cameron signaled that he would abide by Parliament's will in regard to Syria and he saw his proposal to support the U.S. initiative defeated. France's Hollande has not made the same mistake and has dispatched a frigate and a submarine to support the U.S. forces now standing off the coast of Syria.
The Brit defection from the war plan probably will not stop France and the U.S. from bombing Syria. However, it likely has delayed execution of the plan. Obama has pushed Kerry out in front to make the case for intervention, but the longer the situation drags on without decisive action, the more skeptical people become about explanations from an Administration with very little credibility left.
Critical assessments of the likely long-term fallout from a strike against Syria are beginning to appear in the Press. A roundup of skeptical opinion is provided in today's NY Times by Anne Barnard and Alissa J. Rubin from Beirut. It is notable that none of the considerations regarding the likely effects of a strike on the larger region are being dealt with in any serious way by any of the Administration's spokespeople.