posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:40 AM
Well, firstly I think we're taking this a bit too alarmist-like - war plans are developed for every possible contingency, and revised constantly.
Somewhere in the Pentagon, there are plans to launch invasions of Colombia, nuclear strikes on Western China, and all manner of other marvelous
adventures...just in case (not being sarcastic here, seriously, it saves time on having to draft them WHEN something happens).
That said, IF the US is going to attack Syria in Feb (or any time in the near future), it would be a colossal mistake. Now, to clear things here, I am
fully in support of the Iraq war. In my opinion, terrorism can be clearly linked to the fact the majority of the governments in the middle east rely
very much on blaming the rest of the world for their problems to hold on to power - hence the tight control of the media, the removal of corrupt
western influences (which they label as corrupt often without their people's input). And frankly, this is a sensible strategy on their part: it's so
much easier to make mistakes and continue inept strategies if their people blame Israel or America for everything that happens to them.
That said, I understand that the US is responsible for the fact that some of those governments are actually in the region. During the Cold War, the
most pressing threat to American National Security was the spread of communism, hence it was justifiable to topple governments and install them to
counter the USSR - the alternatives being doing nothing, and thus losing the Cold War, or confronting the Soviets directly, and thus risking nuclear
Fallout. As for Saddam Hussein, who shared no contiguous borders with Soviet Bloc states, the reason for keeping him in power was to contain the
spread of radical Iranian theocracy, which was seen as the Next Big Threat after the Soviets.
Of course all this sucks for the poeple who live in these areas, but understand that ALL NATIONS act in their OWN interests most of the time, and the
US is no exception. However, I do believe that it is better that it was the US acting effectively in it's own interests during the Cold War than the
USSR. If anyone is socialist on this board, I mean you no disrespect - just saying that I personally prefer the American way of life to be better.
Now, how does all that relate to Today? Well, now that the Cold War is over, the fallout from it is attacking the US. The governments that we propped
up are struggling to remain in power, hence they resort to distracting their people by saying that the US is to blame for their current problems,
which is true to some extent, but I believe that they are responsible for most of their current problems. In any case, the fact that these governments
exist promotes terrorism.
In my opinion, the strategy behind the Iraq War was not just WMDs or Oil (although stopping Saddam from getting those, as well as opening up Iraq's
oil supply to counter OPEC MUST have been on the agenda). In my opinion, the main motivation to attack Iraq was to change the government of an Arab
country that American would have had the MOST justification to attack (hence, while Iran might be a bigger threat, it would have been LESS justifiable
to attack it, in the eyes of most poeple).
The reasoning behind this is that if America can establish democratic governmance in that country, it would offer the people to move past regimes that
promote hatred and terrorism. So it is really important to make Iraq work, because if it does, then there COULD be changes accross the mideast, which,
I believe, in the long term, could reduce the steam of terrorism (although I won't deny that terrorism has definetely increased in the Short Run).
So why does this neocon believe that attacking Syria is a bad idea? Well, IF we can withdraw from Iraq anytime soon, I don't believe it would be a
good idea to get into this situation all over again so soon. I believe that it would be better for America to reduce it's overspending, and replenish
its armed forces while forces within Syria (or for that matter, Iran) work to establish democracy on the model of their neighbor (assuming Iraq
develops such a government, which, I believe, it can). Attacking Syria would only derail the original plan as I have outlined it above - which is why
even a neocon like myself would be against it.
Now, this is a very contraversial topic, and I realize that many people believe that US strategy is centered around Oil, or an anti-Muslim campaign,
or some other nefarious scheme. I understand where those people are coming from, and I respect their opinion, while I strongly disagree with it. But I
have described the Bush Administration's Strategy as I see it, and why I am for it - I don't believe that attacking Syria would be wise under this
strategy, and I don't seriously believe that it IS an imminent event (or a near future one, for that matter).