Spit on hands, hoist flag, etc. etc.. Go get em.

One thing's for sure Ace, we can't let this story die. I think the first chance MSM gets to kill it, they will. Don't think they can handle too many Lebanese politicians wondering out loud: "Iraq was an earthquake in the Arab world.!"

From Jihand Watch the AP reports:

The bearded man in a gray jacket...appeared on... Iraqi state television station Wednesday had a stark message about the insurgency -- he was Syrian intelligence officer who helped train people to behead others and build card bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops.

"My name is Anas Ahmed al-Essa... I am from Syria... "What's you're job?" he was asked by someone off-camera. "I am a lieutenant in intelligence." Then a second question. "Which intelligence?" The reply: "Syrian intelligence." And so began a detailed 15-minute confession broadcast by al-Iraqiya TV...

see jihadwatch

or see

Ace--

You're slightly more optimistic about military action than I am. Firstly, because of the technical limits of airpower. This coming from an airpower zealot-- airstrikes without intelligence on the ground (or mobile forces flushing the enemy out of hiding) is a difficult business. We could be bombing for a LONNNG time before we start to see the effects we want to see-- all the while exposed to more worldwide criticism (none of which admittedly means much in the end, but never underestimate the power of mass media to inflate the minor into the major, and to incrementally but inevitably shift military strategy in a negative direction).

As for the political considerations, if all we were doing was parking the Sixth Fleet off of Beirut and letting 'em have it, I'd agree 100%. However, unlike decades past Syria has the means to directly retaliate against us, this time against our forces in Iraq.

So far, their aid to the Jihadis has mostly been hinted at, rarely confirmed (at least not to Euro-trash "impossible" standards). If, however, we openly took action against Damascus, the gloves could come off quite quickly, with open (and full) Syrian support for the Jihadis in Iraq.

I don't know if it would make much of a military difference in Iraq in the long run, but having an active state sponsor of the Jihadis would probably increase the violence significantly in the short run.

Until Iraq is secure-- or, secure "enough"-- it remains our Achilles heel in the region. It not only sucks up our available ground strength, thus eliminating our most potent option; Iraq has the potential to generate a two-front war against both Syria and Iran.

I'm not saying this isn't going on right now with Iran & Syria; I'm just saying that any decision to use military force against either country has to consider their retaliatory response to our forces in Iraq, not to mention the free Iraqi forces.

But I'm sure my bosses are thinking about that right now.

I hope.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I know we all like making jokes at the expense of the French; guilty as charged. However, I believe in this case the French have some nuisance value. Nothing like a former colony to pique their interest. I also believe that the French know they can make a whole lot more money off a freed Lebanon than one controlled by the Syrians. In their quest to please the rest of the Arab world, they may not have cared so much, but if the rest of the Arab world is willing to throw Little Assad to the wolves, heck, even the French can spoil for a good fight.

"En garde!"

I doubt very much the premise of the WND article claiming that Syria could be forced to leave Lebanon through diplomacy and sanctions. The US does very little trade with Syria and the rest of the world has shown many times that they don't give a rat's ass what scum they trade with as long as they can make a buck. They won't go along with sanctions.

I believe it'll take some military action, which I would expect some time within the next through months. And, that'll just put another nail in the coffin of the Democratic Party as Bush's foreign policy is proven to be correct again.

It's rarely considered the responsibility of a nation to patrol it's border to police those leaving, people leaving rarely are a threat. Border security concentrates on those entering. I want Syria out of Lebanon more than mostbut that's not a valid reason to force them out. I don't understand why it has taken all these years to finally draw some attention to the problem and they nned to use this as the reason for threats of action. The fact that Syria is allowing terrorist activities inside Lebanon and is an oppressive occupying force and has done both for years should be enough for action. I notice that noone is calling for action against Syria IN Syria for the same problems yet, and that's the root of the whole problem. I say ask them to leave Lebanon, throw them out if necessary and sanction them until they clean up their act inside their own nation, or force them at the point of a gun if sanctions fail. Set up some Iraqi training bases along the border and let Iraq assume responsibility for policing people coming in. If there is a better place for training recruits and better conditions for building morale than protecting your own border I sure don't know what it would be. From everything I've seen the majority of new Iraqi troops are based in the cities of Iraq where the personal conflict of bearing arms against fellow Iraqis must have an effect on them. It seems to me if they could train against a clearly defined enemy they would adapt more readily and if they can cut off the flow of arms, money, and so-called insurgents that are nothing more than invading terrorists the training and the actions afterward would feel like an accomplishment rather than the way it must feel now. The Iraqi population in general would view them more as defenders instead having mixed feelings about them like they do now.

Syria may not be a direct threat to the US (yet), but they are very much a threat to our two key allies in the region, Israel and Iraq. If we want a stable Iraq, we have to get Assad in line, which will very possibly mean sticking him in a cell next to Saddam's.

it would be sweet if, while bombing said troops, we dropped a bomb or two on some Hezbollah camps in the Bekka Valley.

"Whoops. How did that happen?"

Here's a bit of irony. If Bush's implied plan works - ie, if a Democratic Iraq makes despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran untenable each of which then collapses from its own weight with support from Special Forces and not US Army regulars - then America will have spread freedom throughout the Mideast while only fighting 2 synchronous conflicts.

Think of the savings in human life, property, infrastructure. Think of the spread of freedom. What if Iraq is not a quagmire, but the keystone in a dam that's needed to burst? What if Iraq was not about WMDs at all, but about gaining the center of the chessboard in the Middle East? And Rumsfeld would be vindicated - smaller mobile military units operating independently and asynchronously become the new political weapon of war - the best response to rogue states and rogue WMDs.

And what are the eventual payoffs to America? Bases for our troops, democratic protection of our oil supply, friendly regimes seeking to establish credibility against the remaining despotic regimes of Russia and China. And don't forget the freedom brought to millions in the process.

The irony to all of this is that not only will Bush have succeeded, but it will be at a ridiculously low cost. Every criticism leveled against him these last 4 + years will fall on its face. Finally, he will have succeded in utterly dismantling the entire framework on which leftist foreign policy is based in America, whereby America is an invisible hand leading the world quietly to soc-ialism and Marxism. Instead freedom, capitalism, and democratic republics will be not only viable and available, but also the best route forward. It will be Reagan's victory vs. the Soviet Union rewritten in an age of Asynchronous warfare and post-modernist Marxism.

It would be a good thing.

I like the way you think John.
I'm an optimist too.

For an interesting, yet depressing counterpoint, check out Allah's blog.