The chase around the mulberry bush continues. Assume - seems to be a pretty good assumption - that Syria is exporting terrorists to the neighboring countries. There are about two zillion posts on here about how fragile the Iraqi democracy is, because it lacks the legs at this point to really react. Ditto Lebanon. This Hariri, who I didn't know too much about, was evidently pretty popular, with the Lebanese people - much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. Two fragile nations at risk. So. . . . whacha gonna DO? I've got it - constructive engagement, followed by a fierce round of diplomatic protest. This time we really, really, really, REALLY mean it. The two year old ignored you in the other line. This time he's actively laughing at you. Better still - ignore the whole issue, so that when Iraq actually is destabilized, you can say 'I told you so'. Best of all - damn any active policy whatsoever (with no alternative proposal whatsoever) and try to invest in Michael Moore's new documentary. Quote some of Rhyss-Burgess's misunderstood Thomistic philosophy for good measure. (One of these days I may have time to deal with that ridiculous philosophical quack - Burgess, not Aquinas - appropriately. But not this day.) But, coming back to earth after all the fun - whacha gonna do? Other than wash your hands and scry fie? Because both of you managed to overlook completely that car bomb that went off the other day.

It's amazing, isn't it? One (very large) car bomb goes off in Lebanon, the first for nearly 15 years, and the US is screaming "Destabilisation!" and using it as an excuse to cane Syria yet again. This is the same Syria that, although no model of liberalism, has at least provided a modicum of stability in Lebanon after years of civil war. If it wasn't so damned transparent and it wasn't so obvious where the US wants it to go, it would be funny. But you can safely bet that the US will have found its casus belli for invading Syria before the year is out. For the ultra-conservatives it's step two in The Great Plan (What plan? I hear them ask. There's no plan!). No, not much. As far as I can see, the only thing that might stop it is the Iranian aspect. If Iran continues to back Syria and either admits that it has nuclear weapons or the US intelligence agencies assess that Iran has nuclear weapons or (as is more likely) the White House will just make that up to suit its purposes, then the US may think twice. What beats me is how one car bomb in 15 years becomes "destabilisation" of an entire country. There is also no obvious motive for Syria to have either backed or at least turned a blind eye to the bombing. Hariri was their man, after all. And Assad may not be a very nice person, but he's nobody's fool, either. He'll be sitting very quietly hoping that the US leaves him alone. What's more, I don't remember seeing or hearing of any evidence that Syria is harbouring (willingly or otherwise) terrorist groups. I have heard, on the other hand, that Jordan is unwittingly/unwillingly hosting such groups. But Jordan, of course, is an ally, so that's all right then. Heaven forfend, I actually find myself agreeing with some of what Porter Goss had to say in the article you quoted and all of what Jacoby said. How to get that through to the warmongers in the West Wing?

Tim: "If you listen to what the *Lebanese* say (which is the point isn't it?), Syria did play a constructive role in ending the civil war and the 1989 constitutional reforms. The next sentence, however, is: Thank you for helping, but, you've overstayed your welcome. Can you please get out? Too which the Syrians say, Uh.. ok, but it will take a little time. Yeah, over a decade at this point." Agreed that SOME Lebanese think this way, mostly those in Beirut. Why do you think the Syrians have stayed? I think you'll find (in fact, I know you will) that it's all a little bit more complicated than it appears on the surface. Tim: !> If it wasn't so damned transparent and it wasn't so > obvious where the US wants it to go, it would be > funny. But you can safely bet that the US will have > found its casus belli for invading Syria > before the year is out. The U.S. already has plenty of reasons. No need for a new one." Oh? What? The allegations that terrorists are entering Iraq through Syria? Well, no doubt some are. And through Jordan (remember that delightful chappie who slices peoples' heads off on camera?). And, most definitely, through Saudi. Probably through Turkey. Definitely through Iran. It's pretty clear that either some people have never been to these places or if they have, have forgotten just how porous and ill-defined borders there really are. Tim: "If Iran continues to back Syria > and either admits that it has nuclear weapons or the > US intelligence agencies assess that Iran has nuclear > weapons or (as is more likely) the White House will > just make that up to suit its purposes, then the US > may think twice. Why?" Well, you may have a point in asking "Why". I don't know for sure, but judging on past performance common sense isn't part of Dubya's tookit. There are nasty things that you can do with plutonium even if you don't have a bomb, and the mullahs haven't shown a lot of squeamishness in the past. The risks involved in the US attacking Iran (or of Iran backing Syria if the US invades Syria) are, as far as I can see, very, very high. Tim: "> What beats me is how one car bomb in 15 years becomes > "destabilisation" of an entire country. There is > also no obvious motive for Syria to have either > backed or at least turned a blind eye to the bombing. > Hariri was their man, after all. Again, listen to the Lebanese. Hariri clearly was not the Syrian's man anymore. He quit, remember? He was running for office in next years' elections, on a Syria-get-out-of-Lebanon platform." So what? I doubt whether the relationships between Hariri, Lebanon and the Syrian government are as clearcut as you might think. Things in Lebanon are NEVER that clearcut. If Assad had wanted Hariri eliminated it could have been done much less spectacularly and safely from the political point of view. Assad may not shed any tears over Hariri's meeting his quietus, but I sincerely doubt that he organised it. Tim: "> And Assad may not > be a very nice person, but he's nobody's fool, > either. He'll be sitting very quietly hoping that > the US leaves him alone. What's more, I don't > remember seeing or hearing of any evidence that > Syria is harbouring (willingly or otherwise) > terrorist groups. I have heard, on the other hand, > that Jordan is unwittingly/unwillingly hosting such > groups. But Jordan, of course, is an ally, so > that's all right then. Capfka, please. You've heard of Hezbollah, right? They do not have training camps in Jordan, they don't get supplies and weapons from Iran via Jordan, they don't support Palestinian rejectionist groups out of Jordan. Where do those groups hang? Why, it is Syria. Funny that. Asad is sitting very still right now. And with good reason. But he has a lot of domestic cronies that make a lot of money in Lebanon who will not give those corrupt activities anytime soon. It may take more than words for someone to force them to withdraw from Lebanon." Hizbollah is based in southern Lebanon (you remember the Bekaa Valley, right?) and Syria makes very sure that they stay there. They are performing some small service to Syria by keeping up the pressure on northern Israel. The word I've heard is they get very little from Syria, although Syria turns a blind eye to funding/arms coming in to Hizbollah from Iran. While I guess there will be some coming and going across the border, Syria has not shown any inclination to welcome them with open arms, even while acknowledging them as a legitimate political organisation. Of course, Hizbollah is like the IRA is/was, partly terrorist, partly "legit". Lately Hizbollah seems to have been very quiet, too. The fact that the US feels that it has the right to start demanding that Syria withdraws from Lebanon, especially in the face of its own currently unwelcome occupation of Iraq, is, um, interesting from all kinds of perspectives. The silly thing is that if America had invaded Lebanon to try to eliminate Hizbollah rather than invading Iraq, it might well have been seen by the rest of the world as a legitimate attack on known terrorists who have frequently targeted Americans ... :)

The upsurge in support for various terrorist groups the world over is largely a result of the failure of states. To use the Middle East as an example, the region is host to a vast range of anti-western feeling. This in part results from the desire for a "pure" Middle East, free from the presence and influence of "unbelievers", and partly from nationalists who resent the West meddling in politics there. Initially this feeling was expressed through the state (as when Egypt nationalised the Suez canal), however the rapidly increasing power of the West has left state actors largely redundant. Iraq being a case in point. No government in the Middle East can stand up to the West (if Iran becomes nuclear things could be different). Instead people have had to turn elsewhere to express their views and beliefs. The attacks in New York and Madrid were effectively a recruiting campaign by Islamist groups, eager to show that they could provide what the state could not. This is something that countries like the US and UK seem to have failed to grasp. The danger comes not from regimes, but from decentralised groups linked only by an ideology. More Coalition soliders have been killed by insurgents than by Iraq's army. The collapse of Saddams regime led to an increase in support for terrorist groups. To many, they are the only ones capable of getting anything done. This is why an attack on Syria, or Iran would be a mistake. Further destabilisation in the Middle East will only increase support for terrorism, as states are seen as more and more redundent.

"It's something the US & UK understand very well; that's why they've tried to prop up said obnoxious regimes for the last six decades or so. Even Bush the Elder held off from removing Saddam." You're right. Though it's sometimes difficult to see this logic operating in the War on Terror. Removing the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq through military force has allowed previously contained groups to run riot, not only the Islamists but tribal conflicts are springing up again. It's difficult to see how any true democratic government can take hold without resorting to force to quell unrest. "But such regimes have a limited life expectancy. When the time to remove them comes, a liberator shouldn't do things halfway." It's hard to tell whether you're pro or against this strategy. If we continue to support governments that act to safeguard our interests, against the wishes of their populations we will only aid the rapid spread of anti-western feeling. Support for extremist groups will increase, resulting in further tragedies. The folly of this approach is clearly demonstrated by both Iran, and the attacks in New York and Madrid. We cannot occupy the entire Middle East, and would be no safer even if we did. The West is trapped in a Catch-22. Continue to protect our economic interests in the area, and anti-western feeling will continue to increase. Allow democracy to take root, and our access to the oil reserves becomes uncertain.