Long ago in an insurgency far, far away
the President and his advisors determined that the only way to gain the upper hand in their endless struggle with the rebel alliance and cripple its ability to continue the war was to invade and bomb the neighboring kingdom of Cambodia
in order to rout out secret rebel bases and sanctuaries from which attacks against the Empire were being conducted.
As you might recall, this policy was so successful that the Empire was able to declare peace with honor and withdraw its troops from the territories the Empire had previously occupied during the long struggle with its enemy, leaving its valiant ally well equipped to defend itself against any aggressor.
It now appears that history is poised to repeat itself, once more, only this time the Empire plans to defend Iraq from rebel attacks launched from sanctuaries across Iraq's border with Syria.
More after the break . . .
Indeed, as we speak plans to root out these rebels in their hidey holes in Syria may be nearing implementation:
JERUSALEM [MENL] -- The United States has been considering attacking Sunni insurgency centers in Syria.
Western diplomatic sources and analysts said the U.S. Defense Department and Central Command have been warning of the increasing activity of a Sunni insurgency network in northern Syria. They said the Pentagon has been discussing a U.S. strike that could end the network's operation.
"The Syrians appear to be encouraging some of this activity," a diplomat said. "It's clear that diplomacy hasn't worked and Washington is considering other ideas."
All snark aside, is anyone else bothered by the historical parallels here? It's as if the Vietnam War supporters from a generation ago are taking another bite at the apple of establishing American Pre-eminence, and they're sleep walking through the same tired and no doubt ultimately ineffective strategies that were tried the last time out. You doubt me? Well what about this recent statement from Lawrence Eagleburger, former Bush I Secretary of State:
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger gave one of the more reckless responses to the London bombings Thursday (July 7, 2005) when he proposed that the U.S. bomb or invade Syria and possibly Iran in retaliation.
Appearing on "The Big Story" with John Gibson, Eagleburger admitted what he was going to say would not be popular and then said the U.S. should "move against those who are housing terorists."
"This is war and I don't understand why it's not proper to go after those who mother the terrorists," Eagleburger said, pointing to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
And he's not alone. There are plenty of other cheerleaders
for such a move:
If ever a country seemed ripe for regime change, Syria is it. It's run by a cabal of insiders, many from the same minority religious sect. In a region famed for joblessness, it has one of the highest rates of newly unemployed. Faced with relentless U.S. pressure--and with Iraq and Lebanon both undergoing seismic changes next door--Syrian President Bashar Al Assad should be running scared. "[F]ear of American power, and the example of American forces flushing Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole, now drive Syrian policy," exulted Fouad Ajami in The Wall Street Journal in May, adding that Syria's rulers hang on George W. Bush's every word, "wondering if Iraq was a crystal ball in which they could glimpse their future."...
Cambodia redux, anyone? Even the need for a distraction from an ongoing investigation seem eerie, to say the least.