Information that supports the claim that al-Qaeda forces have been mingling with the Free Syrian Army has been widely available for quite some time. When news regarding the Syrian National Coalition lobbying Congress in pursuit of U.S. support to the Syrian rebels was unveiled, Reuters reported that a Free Syrian Army Supreme Military Council had been killed by members of the al-Qaeda forces controlling the Latakia province during a strategic meeting.
According to the reports, the militant Islamist organization and the Free Syrian Army built a coalition that seemed necessary to the cause since the FSA was in the position of looking for allies to reinforce the rebel presence in the region.
During an interview with The Hill, former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said that if the U.S. military intervenes and decides to attack Syria, it would turn into “al-Quaeda’s air force.” According to the former Ohio Congressman, U.S. intervention at this point would simply plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East.
Since al-Qaeda militants have been cooperating with the rebel forces combatting Bashar Assad’s regime, direct support to groups fighting Assad would put American forces on the same side as al-Qaeda, which is the organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks that claimed the lives of thousands of innocent people. According to Kucinich, supporting rebel forces “is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally,” according to the former congressman, trying to “minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’” won’t make it different from having declared a war. Kucinich said that being on the side of al-Qaeda in this struggle is “not anything to be trifled with.”
The former congressman has raised questions related to whether Assad used poison gas against over 1,300 people last week. He claimed that the Obama Administration is taking sides too quickly, which could potentially “rush” the U.S. into what could turn out to be “World War Three.”
When Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) defended his stance on the matter earlier this year by claiming that arming Syrian rebels would only strengthen al-Qaeda’s presence in the region, few lawmakers sided with him.
Now, several lawmakers seem to be taking a more restrained approach to the matter by opposing a potential military strike carried out by the United States.
According to Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA), “engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) also issued a statement Tuesday claiming that “the United States must understand that this action [military strike against Assad’s forces] will likely draw us into a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria.”
The Obama Administration will be perpetrating an unconstitutional act if it chooses to engage in a military strike against Syria without congressional authorization. It’s now up to Washington to decide if upholding the constitution and staying out of Syria, which is what the majority of Americans want, is what they pursue to be the best and most reasonable thing to do.