Is the US planning on invading Syria?

The hot news is that it's now evident that Syria was involved in the assassination of Lebanon's Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The investigation, commissioned by the United Nations and conducted by a German lawyer, makes clear several things:

- There is a mountain of eye witness testimony validating the theory that Syria approved, planned, and executed the assassination.

- It's clear that Syria was not just "less than cooperative" with the investigation. They tried to undercut the investigation at every turn, even "providing false or inaccurate statements" in an attempt to mislead the investigation.

- Syria had extremely strong motives to assassinate Hariri. Syrian President Bashar Assad wanted to extend Lebanese President Emile Lahoud's term term by three years, something that Hariri was fighting to stop. Plus, Hariri wanted greater separation from Syria, something that certainly didn't sit well in Damascus.

- Hariri was threatened by various members of the Syrian government including by Assad himself. Two weeks after receiving a warning not to "[push] things too seriously", Hariri was dead.

The US is now conducting a review of policy options based on the UN report. UN Security Council action is expected, but no one seriously believes that the famously unilateral Bush administration will be satisfied with sanctions or foul language (about the extent of UNSC enforcement powers). Not only that, there are several reasons why Bush will want to attack Syria and most likely will:

1) Bush may be from Connecticut, but he's a self-styled Texan. He's going to want to "kick ass and take names". Bush loves looking tough and attacking Syria is the perfect way for him to look tough and deflect attention from the numerous failures at home (not to mention that not-so-wise Supreme Court nomination).

2) Iraq won't go quiet unless Syria does too. In short, the border is an open floodgate for insurgency in at least three ways: recruits, equipment, and safe haven. Neither the US or Iraq has been able to close the border, leading to a flood of insurgents and firepower. That's been well documented. What I haven't seen much on (most likely due to my fanatical dedication to the Washington Post at the exclusion of all other media) is that insurgents can and do use borders as staging areas for assaults. The North Vietnamese did it in Cambodia in the 60's; the Iraqi insurgents are doing it now. In fact, the Condi Rice made this argument yesterday in testimony that was both policy and politics. Importantly, Rice refused to take invasion off the table of options being considered, leading some to suggest invasion is a matter of "when" not "if".

[Aside: Rice also asserted that Bush didn't need further Congressional authorization for war in Syria or Iran, something that the Republican Senator from Maine flatly and pointedly rejected. The Bush admin sticking with it's belief, but it's an interesting story because it looks like the GOP could be calling it's dog in, not the Dems.]

3) Removing Assad, a dictator, would bolster Bush's vision for a democratic Middle East and serve as fair warning to Iran. Let's face it, from Bush's seat, Syria's a boil, Iran's a cancer. The real message that invasion would send would be as a warning to Iran. The US is clearly capable of blowing things up, but having the political willpower to broaden the "war on terror" could be the deterrent necessary to rein in Iran's nuclear program.

That being said, there are a number of reasons why the US should not invade Syria, including:

1) The military is overstretched already. There are recruitment shortages, morale is dropping, National Guard troops (ahem, reservists) have become full time active duty, and the military has had to drain troops from various other areas around the world to compensate for the numbers involved in Iraq. We're already spread thin; more wars make it less likely we can accomplish the goal of a peaceful Middle East and increase the risk of casualties.

2) The fog of war. Bush and Cheney like to think that war is as simple as pointing your cue stick at a country on the map and getting it done, but it obviously isn't that easy. The US has already suffered close to 2,000 dead soldiers in Iraq and that number is accelerating. Adding more fronts to the war only increases the vulnerability of our troops and is little more than a death warrant for thousands of young men and women who are being put in harms way.

3) Beating insurgency isn't easy. There's a long history of insurgency beating stronger opponents. The French got beat in Algiers and Vietnam, the US got beat in Vietnam, the Soviets got beat in Afghanistan, and the US is getting beat in Iraq (and the Brits, sadly, spent the better part of 200 years getting consistently beat by uppity insurgents disatisfied by colonial occupation). "Winning" a war against insurgents is a tough task that usually results in two things: human rights violations to subdue the opposition and waning public support. Widening the war to Syria only increases the risks that this continues.

There are many more reasons that could be discussed, but that's the short version. Widening the war to Syria (or Iran) will increase US casualties, result in the deaths of thousands of innocents, further destabilize the region, and is likely to fail.

That being said, Bush still might have to do it. He's in a position now where two things are clear: the credibility of US power is on the line and only desperate measures can "fix" Iraq. Superpower domination is predicated on the idea that you can make nations behave the way you desire and if they don't, you can punish them. That's certainly been the case in Iraq.

But more than that, Bush has staked the credibility of US power and of his own legacy on the idea that the US could institute democracy in the Middle East and that the world would be safer because of it. While that might still be possible in Iraq, most analysts aren't too confident, with a great deal of people predicting civil war when or if the US pulls out. If that happens, then the US looks the fool and Bush's reputation takes a global nose dive that will not be recoverable. Bush could care less about global popularity, but he is insanely passionate about his domestic approval ratings and that of the Republican party. His family already took a grave hit in 92 and Bush doesn't want to take another one, especially one that results in 8 years of Democrat rule and throws his brother's Presidential aspirations under the bus. So, in this sense, Bush's commitment to seeing Iraq through exists on both a personal and political level.

With that context in mind (if it is accurate, which my gut says it is), it makes sense that Bush would be willing to engage in a very risky move to broaden the war to Syria. In fact, since they can't solve the border issue, I'd say that the only chance Bush has of "securing" Iraq is if he green lights the invasion of Syria. In other words, it's the bottom of the ninth, he's down by two runs, there's two on and two out. A home run in Syria* would win the day for the Middle East, the Republican Party, and the Bush family legacy. How can he not risk it?

At least now Venezualan President Chavez can relax in the knowledge that the US is not going to attack his country first.**

*By "home run" I mean that invasion actually works in shattering the insurgency and creates order in both countries quickly. Occupation with ongoing insurgency in Syria would *not* be considered a home run. That would be a strike out.

**Read: Chavez is a jackass.