On the border

The USMC is performing a large operation against insurgent positions along the border between Iraq and Syria where the Euphrates crosses from the one country to the other. This makes sense. The presence of the river makes this area the ideal point of entry for troublemakers in Iraq.

According to the reports, the operation is following a hammer and anvil tactic, wherein the Marines hit enemy positions and drive them toward the Syrian border where (while still on the Iraqi side) they walk into kill zones created by other Marine units.

This accomplishes several things:

• It cuts off supplies and reinforcements to terrorists in Iraq's interior.
• It kills the enemy.
• It sends a message to the Syrian government: "Be afraid, be very afraid."
• The operation may itself destabilize the Baath government in Syria.

A key question can be posed here: how active has Syrian support for terrorist activities in Iraq been? We know the Syrians do support the terrorists. It may be active (providing intelligence, supplying weapons, ammo, supplies, shelter, secure border crossings, guides) or passive (looking the other way while the terrorists do all this themselves).

If Syrian support is passive, then they can claim they are in the same position as Pakistan regarding the presence of Al Qaida in their country. In that case, the U.S. will have great difficulty making the diplomatic case for hitting terrorists in their safe havens inside Syria. We would probably have to see Condoleezza Rice absorb multiple rebuffs from the Syrians over controlling their borders before considering ourselves justified in cleaning the situation up ourselves.

However, if the U.S. can find evidence of active Syrian support, we may be looking at the next stop on the U.S. Armed Forces "World Freedom Tour."

But there is a problems there, too. Our strategic intelligence is, in a word, awful. The CIA is so politicized that the President probably looks out the window when the Director of Central Intelligence tells him the sky is sunny. That is what led to the "No WMD's" fiasco in the aftermath of the fall of the Saddam regime. It has caused a lack of credibility in administration assertions regarding foreign threats, and it is probably the reason why we haven't heard the administration make any specific accusations regarding Syria. The sad fact is, the U.S. can't confirm anything it says about the Syrians.

And that is grim news. It means that the level of evidence we will need before hitting the Baathists inside Syria will have to amount to American soldiers or Marines killed because of observable, verifiable Syrian action.