Some more useful links analyzing our seeming willingness to get involved in a completely unnecessary war:

Once upon a time, Barack Obama inveighed against unilateralism and thought that getting United Nations approval for American military actions overseas would be a good idea. Nowadays? Not so much.
Even if we bomb Syria, Russia might "replace any military assets the U.S. destroys in a strike." Assuming no Russian interference whatsoever, our strikes would be of limited value. But if the Russians work to help the Syrians replace bombed assets, our ability to change the situation on the ground for the better might be even further reduced. And are we really willing to get into a proxy war with the Russians in a conflict where no American national security interests whatsoever are at stake?
Seriously? I mean, who actually thought that this enterprise would bear fruit?
Once again, it is worth noting that the new coalition of the willing is less coalesced and less willing than its predecessor coalition.
Searching for fourteen missing people is going to require some big milk cartons.