My husband has a theory that Obama is actually playing a complex game of "chess" and orchestrating the vote with Congress so that the air strike initiative will fail. He says that Obama is only trying to appear "strong" but that in reality the president has no intention of attacking Syria.

Personally, I hope he's right. But the cynical side of me thinks that US military action in Syria is inevitable, given our track record in the Middle East.

By the way, I did not support the war with Iraq, but I did support the war with Afghanistan (post 9/11) because I thought it would be a "limited engagement," that we would get Osama Bin Laden and then get out of there. Ten years later Osama was still breathing and the Taliban was as strong as ever, while untold thousands of innocent people were dead.

So now, I regret that we invaded Afghanistan and I do not believe that engaging Syria will be a stroll in the park as some people are suggesting, and I detest words like "humanitarian intervention," "punitive measures," "sending Assad a message" or "surgical strike." Many experts and military brass even say that if we invade Syria it will turn into a prolonged engagement, that it will only further destabilize the region and that no one will gain from it except those who make their profits from feeding the war machine.