Diplomatic language cannot mask the damage David Cameron's defeat has done to the 'special relationship' That core reliability, the foundation of any alliance according to Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the former British ambassador to Washington, will now, inevitably, be under question and in need of repair. To borrow a phrase once used by Barack Obama of his own accident-prone vice president, Mr Cameron got more than a little 'over his skis' on backing Syrian intervention, and as often happens when that is the case, he fell flat on his face. The central emotion in Washington and the White House is not anger at a British betrayal - after all, Mr Cameron was trying to support America, unlike the "surrender monkey" French back in 2003 - but disbelief at the political incompetence that Coalition whips allowed a vote to go ahead when victory was not assured. Mr Obama will well understand why Mr Cameron lost. He too has to contend with an increasingly isolationist and war-weary public that, thanks to the scars of Iraq and the debts that war left behind, have little appetite for intervention. To those who urge intervention, the crowing of victorious British backbenchers may have looked small-minded and distasteful when set against the suffering of Syria's children, but polls show that a majority of the American public aren't convinced either. But Mr Obama will be less sympathetic towards Mr Cameron for leading the charge for a military response to the use of chemical weapons and then leaving Mr Obama - who has been trying to stay out of the Syrian quagmire these past two years - holding the baby when the British parliament said 'no'. Privately, British diplomats have despaired these past two years about Mr Obama's failure to "show leadership" as the slaughter unfolded in Syria, but just as they appeared to have pushed him towards action, the rug has been pulled from under their feet. Britain's military contribution was always going to be a token part of the strikes, but at a time when the US defence establishment is constantly warning of the need for Britain and NATO allies to 'do their bit', its absence will be keenly felt - not by the US militarily, but by those parts of the British diplomatic and military establishment who want to maintain the notion of Britain's 'standing' in the world. Mr Cameron can still offer moral support from the sidelines, and that will be necessary and appreciated by the White House, but it cannot hide the fact that Britain's pretensions to be a world player, with a seat on the UN Security Council to match, now hang under a cloud of uncertainty.