'The British aren't coming!': US media mock Cameron's failure to deliver on promise to back Obama in strikes against Syria

'The British aren't coming!': US media mock Cameron's failure to deliver on promise to back Obama in strikes against Syria
Britain’s standing on the world stage has suffered an unprecedented blow, with David Cameron mocked on both sides of the Atlantic for failing to back President Obama in intervening in Syria.
Urgent calls were made to the White House last night soon after the government defeat amid claims by one Whitehall official that Britain had ‘handed back its deputy sheriff badge’.
But US newspapers were united in their view that the 'normally reliable Brits' had 'balked' at the prospect of a new conflict in the Middle East, leaving Mr Obama to go it alone.
Scroll down for video

Damning: Barack Obama has been forced to go it alone in launching a military strike on Syria without his closest ally in Britain because David Cameron could not persuade MPs to back him

 

Cameron: No need to apologize to Obama

Chancellor George Osborne warned Britain must undertake ‘national soul-searching’ about its place in the world as Defence Secretary Philip Hammond warned the special relationship was now under ‘strain’.
Diplomatic experts also voiced deep concerns that the repercussions for Britain’s standing on the world stage would be long-lasting.

The New York Daily News front page today was the most striking in the States today, featuring a glum picture of Mr Obama with the headline: The British aren't coming! The British aren't coming!'
The Wall Street Journal said 'US prepares for solo strike on Syria after Britain balks' while the New York Times said Mr Cameron had suffered a 'stunning parliamentary defeat' which was a 'sign of Cameron's weakness'.
The Henry Jackson Society said last night's Commons vote has damaged Britain's reputation as a major global power and also sent a worrying message to dictators, while the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) said it was an embarrassment.

WHAT THE PAPERS SAY: HOW UK LEFT THE US TO GO IT ALONE

The Wall Street Journal front page read: 'US prepares for solo strike on Syria after Britain balks'

The Washington Post said: 'White House: Obama can go it along on Syria'

The Boston Globe front page read: 'In face of resistance, Obama is ready to act alone'

The New York Times said: 'Obama set for limited strike on Syria as British vote no'

Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown said the defeat in the Commons had left the UK a ‘hugely diminished country’.
The influential Tory grassroots website ConservativeHome said Mr Cameron had suffered 'the worst foreign policy defeat in modern times'.
Mr Cameron had promised Mr Obama he would stand should to shoulder with the US in taking military action against the Assad regime after the devastating chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week.
But he now faces the prospect of attending next week's G20 summit in St Petersburg as a much diminished figure, unable to make commit Britain's military might while sitting around the negotiating table with the world's most powerful leaders.
To add further embarrassment, French president Francois Hollande said his country was prepared to stand alongside America and 'punish' Syrian leader Bashar Assad.
He said: ‘The chemical massacre at Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished. Otherwise, we take the risk of an escalation that would normalise the use of these weapons, and threaten other countries.
'Each country is free to choose whether to take part in such an operation or not. That holds true for Britain and France.'
Prime Minister David Cameron recalled Parliament to stage an emergency vote to endorse UK involvement in missile strikes.
But MPs voted by 272 votes to 285 to reject Mr Cameron’s motion backing British intervention in principle.
It is the first time that Parliament has voted against the government on a matter of war and peace since 1782, and raises the prospect of the US having to go it alone.
Mr Hammond said: ‘It’s certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship.’
He said the Americans ‘have been surprised by the scale of opposition in Parliament, and perhaps they will struggle a bit to understand the very special reasons that there are for that view in Parliament’.
Downing Street sources stressed that there had been ‘understanding’ from the White House about the outcome of the vote.
But there was acknowledgement that it permanently altered the assumption that Britain and the US would act together in military operations around the world.
Chancellor Mr Osborne insisted the relationship with the US is a ‘very old one, very deep and operates on many layers’ and there had been 'a bit of hyperbole' about the impact of the vote.

But he suggested the UK was now at a crucial crossroads in deciding the role it plays in global politics.
‘I think there will be a national soul-searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system, be that big open and trading nation that I'd like us to be or whether we turn our back on that,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
‘I understand the deep scepticism that my colleagues in Parliament many members of the public have about British involvement in Syria.
‘I hope this doesn’t become the moment where we turn our back on the world’s problems.’
White House officials cautiously suggested Mr Obama was prepared to launch strikes against Syria without British support.
But asked if the US would go it alone, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said: ‘The opinion of others in this situation matters.’
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said America still wanted to secure international backing for any military intervention.
Speaking during a trip to the Philippines, he said: 'It is the goal of President Obama and our government ... whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort.
'Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together. And I think you're seeing a number of countries state, publicly state, their position on the use of chemical weapons.'

Humbling of Cameron: Vote on military strike against Syria

Debate: A chastened Mr Cameron was forced by Labour leader Ed Miliband to pledge not to deploy any UK military forces without first staging another Commons vote

But Robin Wright, a Middle East analyst for the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Centre, told The Times that the vote ‘complicates life and this has bigger implications about the nature of the relationship between the United States and its closest ally’.
Dr Alan Mendoza, executive director of the trans-Atlantic think tank the Henry Jackson Society, said: ‘If not reversed, this vote means the UK will join the rank of third-rate nations, condemned to be the prisoner of events and with no power to shape them.
‘This is a shameful result which will not be readily forgotten by our allies. We can be certain that more atrocities will follow in Syria.’
RUSI director general Professor Michael Clarke said the decision not to go ahead with military intervention would prove an embarrassment for Britain on the international stage.

Ally: US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters during a visit to the Philippines that America would still consult Britain

Alarm: Defence Secretary Philip Hammond (left) said the Commons vote put the special relationship under 'strain' while Chancellor George Osborne warned Britain against turning its back on the world

Lord Ashdown, who appeared in front of Lib Dem MPs with leader Nick Clegg yesterday in an attempt to persuade rebels to back the government, wrote on Twitter: ‘In 50 years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed/ashamed. Britain's answer to the Syrian horrors? none of our business!’
Labour leader Ed Miliband insisted that the UK-US relationship 'remains strong' despite last night's vote.
He said: 'I do think there's a lesson for Britain, though, which is that we must lead in the right way for Britain from our national interest and indeed our global interest.
'Now sometimes that will mean agreeing with what America is doing and the way it's going about things, and sometimes it will mean doing things in a different way.'