Ed Schultz Wants Boots on Ground in Syria to Avoid ‘Outsourcing’ American Security

Andrew KirellSep 10th, 2014, 6:03 pm

Ed Schultz has apparently found a way to tie military hawkishness with his blue-collar progressivism: Simply rebrand “boots on the ground” as avoiding the “outsourcing” of American national security.

With President Barack Obama expected to lay out his plan for dealing with ISIS during a Wednesday evening address, the MSNBC host used his Wednesday monologue to rail against “no boots on the ground” as a potential strategy.

His rationale? Not sending U.S. troops to Iraq or Syria would mean, using Schultz’s own populist vernacular, the “outsourcing” of American security to Middle East allies.

“President Obama tonight will go to the American people and he is going to lay out what? A limited strategy?” the host incredulously asked. “How can we say there’s not going to be any boots on the ground? I mean if ISIS is ISIS and they are as capable as everybody says they are — if they can hit America, if they have that capability — why in the world would we outsource our security to Syrian moderates or the Kurds or Iraqi forces that we really don’t know are going to stand up yet? Why wouldn’t we take care of that job ourselves if ISIS is the threat everybody says they are?”

He continued, with emphasis added:

So what we’re going to do is we’re going to have more intensified air strikes and we’re going to arm the Syrian moderates and arm the Iraqis and say, “Hey, you guys got to go get the bad guys.” I don’t know if I like that. What I do like is the president to come out tonight and say all options are on the table. We’re not putting boots on the ground right now, we’re going to try to get the job done this way, this is what I believe we can do.

But to tell the American people “no boots on the ground”? That’s a fool’s errand. We don’t know where this is going to go if ISIS is the threat as everyone says they are.

And for us, as an American society, to think that, all of the sudden, we don’t sacrifice anymore for our freedom, is really wrong. This is a terrorist organization that wants to take down America. Why would we outsource it? Number two, why would we put limitations on our security? “Well, you know, we had a bad experience before, so we’re not going to put boots on the ground this time either.” We don’t know! I want to hear the president come out tonight and say, we will do, as a country, whatever it takes to make sure we’re safe.

Big Ed seems to have company in his progressive hawkishness. His viewers overwhelmingly believe that the president doesn’t need a congressional vote on military strikes against ISIS: