No longer just a volley of cruise missiles or a limited strike, according the New York Times on Friday, President Obama has now “directed the Pentagon to develop an expanded list of potential targets in Syria” that suggest a wider military campaign, the possibility of more loss of life and a deeper quagmire if the U.S. enters the Syrian civil war.

In addition, as the Associated Press reports, the Obama administration is now considering expanding its support of Syrian rebel fights by expanding the ongoing “CIA training being done quietly in Jordan,” which could spell a protracted and greatly increased involvement of U.S. soldiers on the ground in the region.

Both news stories come as Congress continues to debate war resolutions that would authorize the president’s desire to go to war, even as Obama has said he does not necessarily need congressional approval to launch strikes or commit military forces.

That battle in both the House and Senate, however, has created strange dynamics when it comes to White House policy over the war. Even as some congressional war hawks—best exemplified by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham—have called for a more “robust” war plan in Syria, the overall mood in Congress seems to be cool on the idea for a new Middle East war that has no clear objective and no clear endgame or exit strategy.

With those lawmakers in the “leaning No” column seeming to continue their lead over those “leaning Yes,” pressure from the White House and the war lobby is now being pitted against peace advocates and those groups urging a different path towards a negotiated settlement in Syria.