New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | August 10, 2005

Michael Young says the biggest barrier to U.S. hopes for Iraq is neighboring Iran... that's why we're likely to target Syria next.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← The Tipping Point | Main | Your Tax Dollers Dollars at Work… →

See all 35 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|8.10.05 @ 6:17PM|#

You mean we're gonna hit a trifecta again, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria?

|8.10.05 @ 7:16PM|#

Ok haha nice joke...bush should have attacked saudia arabia but instead attacked iraq...and now tounge in cheak you say instead if attacking Iran bush will attack syria...haha

By the way why is Iran more of a threat to American troops in iraq then Iran???

Bush may well attack Syria...but i really doubt it will becouse he really wants to attack Iran....he may attack becouse he really wants to attack North Korea...but that is a different story :)

|8.10.05 @ 9:29PM|#

Sounds like a big chess game to me. Only with dead bodies.

|8.10.05 @ 9:43PM|#

Even Mortimer Snerd, Edgar Bergin's dummy, would have noticed Bush's plans for spreading peace and prosperity over in the Middle East are not going perzackly right.

joshua corning,
So many places yet to attack... fewer and fewer Marines to do it with.

|8.10.05 @ 9:57PM|#

The U.S. bombed North Vietnamese sanctuaries there to prevent the entry of troops and weapons into South Vietnam, ultimately visiting disaster on a neutral country.

The bombing (the menu bombings, etc.) was done in concert with missions by ground personnel, namely the Daniel Boone operations that crossed the border. They were never successful.

|8.10.05 @ 10:01PM|#

thoreau,

You gotta be more toughminded. :)

|8.10.05 @ 10:09PM|#

And how, pray tell, is the US supposed to deploy the ground forces necessary for a major strike against Syria, when its current force in Iraq is stretched thin merely in occupying that country? After making all of those noises about force drawdowns, it'd be more that a bit embarassing to explain to the American public that additional divisions are going to be sent in-theater, with even greater National Guard and Reserve mobilization than we have at present. Syria may be weak, but it does have a military, and raids by a battalion or two of Marines are unlikely to cow it. Taking on additional military obligations when we're having enough problems with the ones we've got indicates a level of strategic stupidity that even this Administration is probably not going to reach.

|8.10.05 @ 10:14PM|#

Mark B.,

Well, one option would be to create joint operations units that are lead by a few U.S. soldiers and made up largely of Iraqis.

|8.10.05 @ 11:20PM|#

Young is silent on how strikes against Syria -- more precisely, against Arab jihadis using Syrian territory to enter Iraq -- would be conducted.

It is highly unlikely they would be conducted with ground forces. After non-Iraqis enter Iraq they have been found to disperse, but this may not be the case while they are still making their way down the "rat line" through Syria. If action were taken against them it would probably take the form of a series of increasingly urgent private and public warnings to Syria, followed by air strikes on stopping points on the highway leading to Iraq. Whether this tactic would produce worthwhile results is not a question I can answer with the information available to me.

|8.10.05 @ 11:24PM|#

you'll get no argument out of me that the Syrian regime is full of cunts, but why ohh why should they crack down on their border security? What good would it do them but bring the wrath of the resistance on them as well? And even if they did crack down, what evidence that even if the moves they took were competent, a big if, that they'd be successful or lessen the mad dog pentagon against them?

|8.11.05 @ 1:34AM|#

Syria, Iran-Both are next on the neocon's target list of regimes for the US government to expend American lives and money on behalf of the Israeli government now that Iraq has been done. Iraq may serve as a base of operation. Expect a lying propaganda campaign to escalate soon. The neocons engaged in wild duplicity to con us into the Iraq war and all the feeble minded and cowardly Democrats can do is talk about "faulty intelligence".

|8.11.05 @ 1:40AM|#

I get the distinct feeling that Iraq is going to be to the Middle East what West Germany was to Europe during the Cold War: a big giant US footprint in the area from which to rattle sabers.

|8.11.05 @ 2:09AM|#

Well, one option would be to create joint operations units that are lead by a few U.S. soldiers and made up largely of Iraqis.

You're a cheery fellow there, Hak.

Ingenious, too. Why didn't I think of that.

|8.11.05 @ 2:30AM|#

mediageek,

But the cause won't be noble as was our defense against Commie tyranny nor the result as beneficial as the liberation of millions from the same. In fact, our government now gives billions a year of our money to support the Israeli government's tyranny in their thieving and murderous occupation of Palestine and billions more to the authoritarian Egyptian regime. (a payoff for peace with Israel). And also, a half billion to the thug Jordanian regime. Millions a year also go the thug PA, but with the passing of the kleptocrat, Arafat, perhaps the PA will not be so bad. But, of course, they still shouldn't be getting our tax money.

BTW, Arafat was in league with the Israeli government, as is he current PA leadership, to repress capitalism and other liberties among the Palestinians. See: How Israel Lost : The Four Questions by Richard Ben Cramer

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743250281/reasonmagazineA/

|8.11.05 @ 2:45AM|#

Kahn,

Well, its a historically common approach to manpower to the sort of manpower shortages found in campaigns like these.

|8.11.05 @ 2:58AM|#

Only kinda off topic; the Rolling Stones are coming out with a song called "Sweet Neocon" that takes the administration to task for its Iraq war policy:

http://antiwar.com/justin/

BTW, Jagger is a Hayek fan of sorts. And I don't mean Salma in this case. He studied him at the London School of Economics.

|8.11.05 @ 3:04AM|#

Rick Barton,

There was already a thread about the RS song.

|8.11.05 @ 4:14AM|#

Speaking of desperate attempts to avoid crushing defeat, has anyone else heard about the big parade the Pentagon is planning to *ahem* commemorate the 4th anniversary of 9/11?

Anyone else suspect it might turn out to be a "victory" parade to commemorate our ignominious slink away from Iraq after the Shari'a is codified as the new Iraqi Constitution? Mr. Young's article notwithstanding, it's looking more and more likely that a slink is going to be an unfortunate necessity, and doing it now would avoid the mid-term election rush.

|8.11.05 @ 8:07AM|#

trainwreck,

To get at Iran we might also invade Turkey, Egypt, Tanzania, Ecuador, and Antartica. We must stop penguin terrorist activities. :)

|8.11.05 @ 8:12AM|#

Borders are two way streets. If the mighty US and its client government in Iraq failed to prevent jihadis from entering, then why expect Syria to be able to do it?

Beside most of the insurgents are not foreign jihadis, so why blame US failures on Syria's failure to stop jihadis?

Seems to me someone is looking for a pre-text to go after their pre-determined next target, just like WMD and Iraq.

|8.11.05 @ 8:30AM|#

Hak-

What, you don't want to liberate those penguins? The bottom line is that right now the brutal regime is feeding penguins to polar bears! Polar bears! How can you defend something like that?

(And yes, I know, there are no polar bears at the South Pole.)

|8.11.05 @ 8:32AM|#

More importantly, that alien space ship at the South Pole is being used by the Iranians as a base for their WMD program.

How do I know about the space ship? Ever see the X-Files movie? Duh!

|8.11.05 @ 8:46AM|#

"you'll get no argument out of me that the Syrian regime is full of cunts,"

spur,
After genital mutilation, are you sure you're being technically correct?

|8.11.05 @ 9:11AM|#

There are WMBs in Antartica. Wild massive bears. Wont someone think of the penguins?

|8.11.05 @ 9:50AM|#

Hakluyt,

Oops. I musta missed the thread about the RS' song. Sorry

|8.11.05 @ 9:58AM|#

The U.S. bombed North Vietnamese sanctuaries there to prevent the entry of troops and weapons into South Vietnam, ultimately visiting disaster on a neutral country.

A country with "North Vietnamese sanctuaries" are launching attacks across the border is either (a) not neutral or (b) no longer sovereign, since it can't control what goes on inside its borders.

If the mighty US and its client government in Iraq failed to prevent jihadis from entering, then why expect Syria to be able to do it?

Because if Syria can't, then it falls into the same dilemma. It either can't because it won't (that is, it is happy to provide passive and/or active support to the jihadis, and is thus not neutral and a legitimate target for retaliation), or it can't because it has lost control of the region, in which case it is no longer sovereign there and has no standing to complain about what we do to prevent armed incursions across the border.

|8.11.05 @ 10:09AM|#

RC,

I think you're missing the point. This isn't about Bashir Assad's widdle feelings.

You're always so determined to argue We're Not Wrong, Dammit, you never bother with the practical questions, like, is this a good idea?

|8.11.05 @ 10:27AM|#

RC:

If the US can't prevent foreign fighters from entering Iraq, why do you expect Syria to be able to stop them from leaving Syria?

If the US can't stop illegal immigrants from entering the US why do you expect Mexico/Canada to be able to stop them from leaving MExico/Canada?

It sounds more like the dog-ate-my-homework execues.

|8.11.05 @ 11:36AM|#

If Syria does what it has in past wars, you won't need many troops at all - as soon as the shooting starts, most of them throw down their guns and/or retreat. Israel destroyed most of their air capability in a couple of days in 1982 - they brought down about 90 planes without a single loss.

Any war with Syria would have to be about bludgeoning them into some kind of compromise. I doubt it would involve a whole lot of troops on the ground, unless they are French.

Of course, it goes without saying that Bush might be crazy and/or stupid enough to try it anyway.

drf|8.11.05 @ 1:13PM|#

Thoreau:

remember the Encyclopedia Brown where the polar bear and penguins out of location provided the clue?

gaius marius|8.11.05 @ 1:52PM|#

its a historically common approach to manpower to the sort of manpower shortages found in campaigns like these.

we're already fielding massive mercenary armies in the guise of corporate contractors. i don't see why we'd stop there. why not conscript ghurkas? great idea, gg. :)

If the mighty US and its client government in Iraq failed to prevent jihadis from entering, then why expect Syria to be able to do it?

because it's much easier to use this as a reason to march into damascus (with the propaganda cover of neocon shills like young) than it is to see fault in the holy and righteous nation-god of america, mr a.

gaius marius|8.11.05 @ 1:54PM|#

You're always so determined to argue We're Not Wrong, Dammit, you never bother with the practical questions, like, is this a good idea?

mr dean is sort of the local high priest in the temple of immortal america. you can't expect him to think, mr joe.

|8.11.05 @ 2:06PM|#

"If the mighty US and its client government in Iraq failed to prevent jihadis from entering, then why expect Syria to be able to do it?"

OK, there is a plausible answer to this: because a local government, staffed by people who know the locals and the local situation, and who have, if not the support, at least the respect and credibility of th locals, can do a better job at enforcing laws and controlling a, well, localized racket, than an occupying army of foreigners.

|8.11.05 @ 3:17PM|#

If the US can't stop illegal immigrants from entering the US why do you expect Mexico/Canada to be able to stop them from leaving MExico/Canada?

I've spent most of my life along the Mexican border, in fact my family has been here since the 1870s.

On the Mexican side, groups of illegals are brought up by buss, often within view of the federales, books are written and sold telling how to cross and who's ranch to avoid, etc (not to mention the Mexican government's own book for illegals). Essentially, crossing is very organized, and this is possible due to the lack of enforcment on the Mexican side.

If the Mexican government did crack down, it could prevent quite a bit of the illegal immigration to the US. Not 100%, but it could make a significant impact. Alas, Mexico needs some way to vent due to its economic and political problems, and illegal immigration to the US is its answer. So a crack down will simply not happen.

|8.11.05 @ 6:59PM|#

R.C. Dean,

A country with "North Vietnamese sanctuaries" are launching attacks across the border is either (a) not neutral or (b) no longer sovereign, since it can't control what goes on inside its borders.

Which really has nothing to do with the statement. I also have to ask, if the policy was so readily wise, why did both the LBJ and Nixon administration's choose to lie about its activities?

Bombing and invading Cambodia was so strategically and tactically foolish that its beyond my ability to fathom your rationale here. In the end it expanded a front that neither the U.S. nor the South Vietnamese could defend; it gave a crucial spark to the Khmer Rouge; it provided with Khmer Rouge with a level of arms that they weren't getting from their "allies" due to the corruption in the post-Sihanouk regime (not the last time we'd give the Khmer Rouge arms - after all, we were giving them arms again in 1990 through the same sort of corruption); etc.