So now Syria has the weapons of mass destruction… and Baath party refugees… maybe Saddam… or least a predilection for wearing black socks and sandals. Something we find offensive. Of course “we have no plan for Syria.” But then we had no plan for Iraq until a couple of months ago. Are we just going to mosey through the Middle East until we capture somebody’s weapons or despots or something we can trot out to show the world we were justified? Are we prepared to invade Israel? At least we know for sure they really have weapons of mass destruction.
Now don’t get me wrong, Syria’s record for supporting Iraq and/or terrorism is hardly stellar. But again, we have nothing definitive to pin on them, just satelite photos, a little gun running, and speculation. If this sufficient basis for preemptive strike, then a lot of other countries have to figure we’ll be on their doorstep soon. Does anyone think they are all just gonna roll over one at a time? How much enmity can we engender before we inspire an uprising against the U.S. beyond any terror acts we’ve experienced to date?
I’m no peace-nik. War per se is an integral part of tribal human history. I don’t expect that to change. Sometimes it is the best strategic response. In the current case, I question that. I don’t think anyone in this country is prepared for a sustained conflict or an escalation of domestic terror or the military state required to prevent it. There is still no visible end-game to the current strategy. The Bush administration has an abysmal record of follow-through. From the 2001 economic stimulus plan to Afghanistan, once the headlines stop printing they lose interest. The shine is already fading off Iraq. The hard work is just beginning there. But I don’t think they’ll stick this out either. I hope they prove me wrong.