Invading Syria

George Bush, the consummate poker player, may be about to cash in another big pot. Syria's Assad and his Baathist terrorists look to be the big losers.

In his weekly column, Charles Krauthammer does a great job on the situation and the cluelessness of liberals who want to prop up the Baathist dictator in Damascus. He makes this point:

We are not talking about invading Syria. We have done enough invading and there is no need. If Bashar Assad loses Lebanon, his regime could be fatally weakened.

He describes the chain of events that could lead to Assad's downfall, but notes:

This could all be reversed, of course. Liberal revolutions were suppressed in Europe in 1848, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Tiananmen Square in 1989. Determined and ruthless regimes can extinguish revolutions. Which is why the worst thing we can do is "engage and empower" tyrants.

This is no time to listen to the voices of tremulousness, indecision, compromise and fear. If we had listened to them two years ago, we would still be doing oil for food, no-fly zones and worthless embargoes. It is our principles that brought us to this moment by way of Afghanistan and Iraq. They need to guide us now -- through Beirut to Damascus.

I don't think that there will be any such suppression in Syria because I suspect that President Bush will make it clear that invading is a very real option. As Krauthammer notes, we know that Syria has been an active participant in waging the terror campaign against our forces in Iraq. Some sources have reported that WMDs were spirited across the border into Syria before the war.

Bush should be explaining to Assad that he bet on the wrong horse and it is time to pay up. Past administrations may have put up with those supporting terror against the US, but there is a new sheriff in town and he carries a really big stick. Assad will be given a choice. He can step aside peacefully and go into exile with his money or he can choose the Saddam retirement plan.

When the Syrians demonstrate in the streets for democracy, any suppression will trigger US military action. The pretext won't be support for democracy, but rather the need to nuetralize an enemy who has waged war against the US.

I think Assad will choose to avoid the Saddam retirement plan.