And my point is: it's their decision and not us. The two ally (British and French) agree to commit to their act while in our case part of the community wish for war while the company wish not, heck we're not even united with all the different view and the heat still hasn't cooled off. While it is possible to give our view to them, using violence and act of hatred/sudden impulse in order to force an allied unit to act is wrong, we'll be nothing more than a dictator. If cover failed to react properly over this threat without us going haywire as they go under, then that's all that's gonna happen as it would merely delay the inevitable regardless of wether they can weather through this or not. All we can do is to persuade them on a course we thing would yield a better outcome. And the way we can persuade them is either that they made the opportunity or we're the one actively trying to reach them and no boycotting and other violent measure are not considered actively trying to reach them and more of people disregarding their position and just do whatever they can just to get attention (which by the way in real life example you can either dress up really nice or going buck naked in public if you want to get attention)
How is it connected to your statement: Commitment, the British and French have it while neither we nor cover have it.