It is these people who have allied with the Democrats. Which is why the Democrats appear so like Republican isolationists in WWII. Realpolitek still exists.

The reason why the US should not occupy Syria is the same reason why Israel had so much troubles with their own occupation. We have not digested Iraq yet. The terroists would like for us to fight as an occupation. Instead of doing what they want, we should just attack them like a conqueror, and then just go away. Hit and run, lightning raids. Using guerrila war tactics against the guerrilas. Whoever can win using tactics in a symmetrical manner, wins.

There are many people in power in this world that do not believe that destabilizing the MidEast is a good thing. Of course they don’t, they don’t want to deal with the MidEast in the first place. If Bush destabilizes the Mid East, it puts into the crapper all State’s plans for the region. When the region becomes Islamist, then State can no longer ignore them like they ignored the dictators. Of course people want the status quo in the Mid East to stay.

It’s time for the status quo of Syria and Iran, to cease.

Regarding knocking over Syria: I think that the article underestimates the benefits of regime change. Look how the world re-aligned when Hamas took power. It gave Israel a more free hand. Similarly with Syria. If a more aggressive regime took over in Syria, then Israel might be able to much more easily deal with Syria. Because perhaps Israel would no longer be dealing with Syria on their own.

No one is going to be occupying Syria anytime soon. But if Syria behaves badly enough, then plenty of countries (well, the 4 or 5 that actually do useful things in the world) might be willing to punish it.

American air power is at the level now that bunkers and prepared defense fortifications are no longer an obstacle. They go down immediately once American air power is unleashed. While Israel has some of the best pilots an most advanced fighters like the F-16, they are no match for the USAF.

If Israel can use American air power to break through Hizbollah’s fortifications, Israel’s chances for ultimate victory are much higher. In addition, if Israel can get the US to launch a strike into Syria as a diversion, Syria will be too damaged and concentrated on the US to supply Hizbollah with anything.

These two strategic options are out of the box, because it does not limit itself to the current variables as stratfor outlined. Stratfor has outlined Israel’s limitations. But we all know that limitations can be broken.

One of the neatest solutions is to weaken Hizbollah enough that collaboration with Lebanon would secure South Lebanon. This would be a deception operation. Meaning, everyone would believe Lebanon is pushing Israel out of the region (i.e. excuse for withdrawal), when in reality, Israel is cooperating with Lebanese forces by retreating. The Lebanese government would have in fact be communicating directly with Israel. Yet to the world, it would look as if Lebanon had defeated Israel. This would require skillfull use of tradecraft and spycraft. Not linear at all, very tricky.

Whether Mossad can do this or not, I don’t know. Whether it will, is something I also don’t know. I favor deviousness, because it gives Hezbollah a taste of their propaganda and psychological operations.

Is it not ironic that we have a NATO alliance that is like absolutely useless, where in fact in the Middle East it would help to attack nations jointly.

We could learn a lot from Mossad’s intel network, and Israel could benefit from the pinpoint precision of American airpower, along with our supply bases in Iraq. This is a strategic alliance that Bush would have crafted up, had he been planning to attack Iran and Syria with air power alone. Because Bush is not planning those very good strategic moves, Bush has not made any overtures in the last 6 years for a mutual defense pack with Israel.

Many people who support Bush’s vision in the Middle East, favor a united joint strike against Syria. Where Israel pushes through Lebanon, while Americans take a lightning raid through the Syrian border in order to cause confusion and paralysis in Syria.

I don’t know whether Israel would agree to a mutual defense pack. In my view, it is in their best interests. We are no longer employing proxies in the Middle East alone. Now we have American troops in the middle of the ME, being killed with the help of Syrians and Iranians. Why Bush tolerates this, I do not understand.

The tragedy of the matter is that the world sat by for years trying to broker an impossible peace at the peril of Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

The Israeli pullout in Gaza combined with the Hezbollah attack on the Lebanese border has opened the eyes of many. False and temporary cease fires may lead to fleeting peace but the reality of the situation dictates that terrorists need to be disarmed and destroyed before a permanent solution can be met.

None of this can happen without international resolve to allow this to happen.