OCALA, Fla., September 4, 2013 — As the tension over America possibly taking military action against Syria grows, one national political leader claims that no small number of countries are willing to offer their support.
Despite this, she is unable to specify a single one of them.
During a Monday appearance on CNN, journalist Wolf Blitzer asked Democratic National Committee Chairwoman and South Florida U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz a key question about the Syria situation.
He said: “When you…talk to your constituents and they ask you, ‘Congressman, why is it the United States always that has to get involved militarily? Other countries may be cheering on the U.S….from the sidelines, but it’s always U.S. military men and women, U.S. firepower, that are called upon to do a job like this. Why can’t other countries do it?’”
“Well, there are other countries,” Wasserman Schultz responded. “I mean…from the briefings that I’ve received, there are dozens of countries who are going to stand with the United States, who are going to engage with us on…military action and also that…back us up 100 percent, and so —”
“Which countries…will use their military power to attack targets inside Syria?” Blitzer inquired.
“I, I — that’s honestly something, Wolf, I’m not at liberty to say,” Wasserman Schultz stated. “I mean, some of what we, what I’ve learned is classified. You know, some is unclassified, but what I can tell you is that there are many nations who have committed to support the United States in our action.”
“Militarily?” Blitzer asked.
Wasserman Schultz seemed to either not hear or evade the question: “And that’s going to be important —”
“Militarily? And you’re saying militarily —” Blitzer pressed.
“Yes,” Wasserman Schultz admitted.
“Not just politically or vocally,” Blitzer continued, “but militarily they will support the United States, they will go in with their F-16s, their own missiles, their firepower, and…target sites in Syria?”
“In both military and diplomatic and political support, there are dozens of nations who have committed to back us up. That, that’s what I’m at liberty to say,” Wasserman Schultz responded.
“I know dozens may be, they may be supporting us, but I’ll be anxious to see which ones actually get involved militarily if the President gives that execute order in the weeks to come,” Blitzer told.
The controversy regarding whether or not it is in America’s best interest to enter combat with Syria continues to grow. Some believe that the U.S. has a moral obligation to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad, who allegedly used chemical weapons against people in his civil war-ravaged country.
Assad is part of a religious minority in a nation where Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise. Many opponents of his rule are said to be militant Jihadists. It has long since been revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the world’s most notorious authoritarian groups, is well established with anti-al-Assad forces, as is al-Qaeda.
Late last month, Great Britain was said to be in alliance with America and France in taking military action against Assad. However, the British Parliament subsequently voted down raising arms against Syria. At present, America has next to no public support among the international community for attacking Syria.
The United Nations has yet to vote in favor of an assault on Syria, and the organization cannot confirm the widespread chemical weapon allegations concerning al-Assad.
How President Obama handles the matter might come to be a determining factor in his foreign policy legacy.
“I think President Obama’s foreign policy rests less on defending American interests and more on his ideological distaste for the projection of American power and values,” former United Nations Ambassador told The Washington Times Communities in January. “He is comfortable with a declining U.S. role, whether acting unilaterally or through our structure of alliances like NATO, as reflected by his massive defense budget cuts in his four years, nearing a trillion dollars and his apparent indifference to further cuts of $500 billion through the looming sequestration mechanism.”
Far-left? Far-right? Get real: Read more from “The Conscience of a Realist” by Joseph F. Cotto
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.