The Syrian aid legislation (which, by the way, contains no actual aid) that's about to sail through Congress (which is still budgeting the world's lone superpower 60 days at a time) at the behest of the White House (which must find the aid that Congress isn't aiding in the aid bill) "makes it clear," reports the NYT, "that Congress is authorizing only the training of Syrian rebels and is not giving a green light to a broader use of military force against ISIS."
It goes without saying that Congress is too craven to vote on a separate, Syrian-rebel aid bill; it's to be folded into a Continuing Resolution so that no individual prints can be identified. Should things go (even more) horribly wrong in Syria (such as mass defections by American-trained rebels to ISIS), our plucky tribunes of democracy can always say they voted only to keep the government, such as it is, open. Should something go right for a change in Syria, they can point to this towering aid bill that just happened to keep our national parks open.
Just as murky is that the bill does not give "a green light" to a widened war, although, from what I can gather from the Times' reporting, the bill flashes no red light, either. As of early October President Obama will be acting in Iraq and quite possibly Syria without any legitimate war authorization. His Article II authority will have expired, and his AUMF authority will be a joke (as it already is).
Ours will then be a one-man war of Nixonian imperiousness. Congress will have said neither yea or nay; however back home, virtually each Member will be campaigning for reelection on the platform of what's needed in Washington is his or her particular brand of courage.
There's no need to moralize about the mess we're in. The mess, in itself, is telling enough.