[Defiant]

As for Syria, there will be no need to invade.

First time I've ever disagreed with Steyn. I think we'll end up having to invade. They are, after all, Baathist. They have the HQ of all the major terrorist organizations there, and they are not going to kick them out or turn them into relief groups. And, if reports are true about Iraqi leaders, scientists, research and WMDs being transferred to Syria, the liberation will come sooner rather than later.

There's no good reason to keep another thuggish government in power, and lots of reasons to get rid of them. I say start the process.

[SuziQ]

First time I've ever disagreed with Steyn. I think we'll end up having to invade. They are, after all, Baathist. They have the HQ of all the major terrorist organizations there, and they are not going to kick them out or turn them into relief groups.

I was watching FOXNews last night and just howled when Col David Hunt was talking about all the surrounding countries watching what the Coalition was doing in Iraq. He described the reactions of the Syrian, Jordanian, and Iranian leaders as "toilets flushing all over the Middle East" as these people were considering what could happen to THEIR countires if the US turned it's eye toward them

[CyberAnt]

I don't think we will. I think the ruler of Syria is smarter than Saddam.

And ... don't forget - when Bush says he will do - he does! That being the case, Syria has a model in front of them of what will happen - they will be history. They will either cough up the Saddamites, or we'll take out the whole place - they get to choose - just what would YOU choose ...??

And further ... look at the size of Syria - a good spit and you're in another country. Two weeks to take Iraq - 1 day for Syria. They better not mess with Texas!

[algol]

I don't know. We've cut off their oil feed from Iraq. A little persuasion might be all it takes to cut off their water feed from Turkey.

If not, well, perhaps the troops in Iraq would like a few days to rest up at the beach. Say on the Mediterranean...

[arthurus]

We will not have to invade Syria. Assad will roll over and lick the American hand because he has inherited his father's instinct for survival-and-hang-the-principle. When we suggest that he should stop allowing Pals into Syria and that, in fact Hassan-Bob and Billy-Mohammed shouldn't be in Syria right now, Hassan-Bob and Billy-Mohammed will turn up somewhere just outside the border trussed or dead. Then we start suggesting that Syria needs the benefit of some western companies in its market, etc. As for Iran we will feed the dissidents and give them high fives and they will do the dirty without our overt intervention. The Sauds will collapse somewhere along the way.

[lainde]

Maybe we won't have to invade. I read an earlier article that we've (accidentally-hah) cut off the oil supply from Iraq to Syria. They had a sweet deal at $11/barrel. Not looking rosy for Boy Assad. Another brilliant Steyn!!!

[Beck_isright]

I concur. But it will be a brief affair. The Syrian middle class would love to get rid of Assad and enjoy the potential wealth of an Iraqi pipeline to the Med.

[ez]

They are, after all, Baathist. They have the HQ of all the major terrorist organizations there, and they are not going to kick them out or turn them into relief groups. And, if reports are true about Iraqi leaders, scientists, research and WMDs being transferred to Syria, the liberation will come sooner rather than later.

I agree with you.

Syria and Lebanon are next...which will take us nicely up to the 2004 election, thank you very much.

It is easy to prove terrorism in these countries, and we need to make sure there is no-one threatening our back if we ever need to do Iran (Bush's second term.)

I predict Syria goes down this Fall and Lebanon next Summer.