Two good posts here and here.
Most important is Henley's analysis that the neocons assume that a regime change in Syria will make keeping order in Iraq easier.
On the grandiose side, if you believe that the only reason the US is having troubles of however mild a sort in Iraq - all that ramping up of violence by desperate opponents in advance of each new victory for democracy - because of support trickling in from other countries, then doubling down on the regime change hand looks like a smart play.
In other words, they fail to see the danger of occupying two Arab countries (particularly that it would be harder than occupying one Arab country) because they think that taking over the second will solve the problem of guerilla resistacne in the first.
I also made essentially this point back in August.
The neocons would probably retort that the insurgency in Iraq gets most of its strength from Iran and Syria, so if we attacked them, we wouldn't have any insurgency in any of the countries to worry about (i.e. expand the war and the need for troops diminishes)...
Henley also points out that Iran could make trouble for us in Syria, but as I pointed out in the comments, many neocons think that Iran can be easily defeated by covert action in support of internal rebellion.
In any case, the posibility that we might attack Syria is definitely not a cheerful one.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment