[Lando Lincoln]

I searched for this one every which way - did not see it!

[Lando Lincoln]

My brain is failing - I believe Sun-Times columns can be posted in their entirety. If not, this one will require "moderating".

Lando

[FairOpinion]

"Profound changes in the above countries would not necessarily mean the end of the war on terror, but it would be pretty close. It would remove terrorism's most brazen patron (Syria), its ideological inspiration (the prototype Islamic Republic of Iran) and its principal paymaster (Saudi Arabia). Closing down regimes that are a critical source of manpower (such as Sudan) and potentially dangerous weapons suppliers (such as North Korea) will also be necessary. They're the fronts on which the battle has to be fought. It's not just terror groups, it's the state actors who provide them with infrastructure and extend their global reach.
"

===

Another excellent article by Mark Steyn. He is 100% correct.

I think that Bush is fully intending to take the WoT to these countries, if they don't "shape up" and they show no signs of doing so.

[Cicero]

I think this one has appeared here from another source, and maybe with another headline. But in any case, Steyn is absolutely right. After the 2004 election, however, the picture will change again, and hopefully Bush can take on Syria at that time.

Iran also needs to be dealt with, but probably the best way would be to encourage an internal revolt of the forces that are already much in evidence there.

We'd all rather see these things done sooner rather than later, but Bush has shown an extraordinary ability to get things done, so maybe his timetable is the best after all.

[nicmarlo]

Great read; thanks for posting.

[Quix]

Poohbah,

What's your assessment on the following?

I don't believe we have the:

1) The military ability in terms of manpower, ammo, other material most likely commonly used in such events;

2) The political will;

3) The population's support;

4) The financial/economic strength

to do whatever else may be wise or even required in the Middle East.

It's a sad state, to me.

[Davea]

Squeeze play for Syria. The U.S. on their right the Israeli's on their left........

U.S. deploys 20,000 troops near Syrian border

WORLD TRIBUNE.COM ^ | Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Posted on 11/19/2003 1:25 PM PST by Mossad1967

The United States has deployed 20,000 troops along the Syrian border after Syria failed to stop militants from crossing into Iraq.

As late as October, U.S. officials said hundreds of Islamic insurgents were crossing into Iraqi from Syria. They said Syrian authorities had failed to respond to U.S. appeals to stop the flow of insurgents.

U.S. military officials said the U.S. troop presence was bolstered beginning in September and has resulted in a significant drop in infiltration from Syria. The U.S. troops are based in the Iraqi province of Anbar, Middle East Newsline reported.

Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, said the military completed a 200 percent increase in U.S. troops at Anbar. Swannack told a briefing in Baghdad on Tuesday that the increased deployment was also meant to stop infiltration from other Iraqi neighbors, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. But the U.S. presence has not halted the flow of insurgents from Syria. On Monday, the U.S. military said six suspected insurgents were captured near the Syrian border. One of them was later killed when he tried to attack a guard.

Swannack said the U.S. troop presence in Anbar has resulted in reducing the flow of insurgents from Syria. He said Islamic insurgents have launched attacks against the U.S. force near the 500-kilometer Syrian border. But he called the attacks ineffective.

"We are not fighting foreign fighters coming across the border in significant numbers," Swannack said. "We are fighting mostly former regime locals."

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

War on terror can't stop with Iraq

Right, it needs to go to washington. it is time to declare war against the leftist slime or both parties.