1. fred lapides said:

There is a bit of confusion with this article. First, the US, under Bush, entered the war for reasons that turned out to be not tue. Then the administration shifted the "reason" and stated it went to war to topple a bad guy and to bring democracy to the region.

Next: the US has over and over admonished Syria to stop allowing terrorists to enter Iraq via Syria. Nothing has changed. Now the writer suggestaction of some sort. However, the polls in the US reveal that a substantial percentage of Americans want the troops home and the involvement ended. Why then suggest a broadening of the war by taking on Syria when it is clear Americans will not support such an effort?
Is there a resolution? Perhaps, but what this article suggests is not the one.

2. BobW said:

No one is suggesting "handling the Islamists territory,"? Gaza was not delivered to Taoists and Hebron certainly qualifies as territory not being prepared for transfer to Buddists.

It would be interesting to know who and what groups advocate that B43 & Co. place more troops in Iraq. The entire active duty US Army has only about 120 surgeons. Only about 30-50 are in Iraq. There are about 150,000 troops in Iraq. It costs a lot of money to field armies. Americans want subsidized gasoline and subsidized housing along with free medical care. I'd like Saul Singer to name the groups wanting a larger US presence in Iraq.

Saul Singer asks how, after 4 years since WTC 9-11, there's been no attempt to impose international sanctions on Iran. There has been. Singer doesn't want to admit to the declining role of the US in the global arena. Iran is developing an economic alliance with PR China. Saudi Arabia is a major creditor supporting the US budget.

One main reason B43 & Co. is not stricter on the plan to go after Iran and Saudi is because of the Administration's failed Social Security plan. The money is not present.

The war on terrorism is being fought VERY SERIOUSLY. A Jewish cabinet member, Michael Chertoff, will be issuing America's first domestic passports, in the form of driver's licenses. This is more than symbolism. Meanwhile, back at the fort, a lot is being contracted out because of domestic restrictions on confronting terrorists.

Kol tuv,
BobW

3. Leonard said:

A very good article by Saul Singer arguing essentially that Bush is setting the bar too high by setting the goal of democracy for the ME instead of simply the removal of terror sponsoring regimes, with the result being that two other countries namely Syria and Iran described as forming part of the "axis of evil " are being let of the hook, whilst American's are being sacrificed for unattainable goals. Sharansky is guilty to an extent of encouraging Bush in that mode of thought through his recent book that is believed to have greatly influenced Bush into believing that the Arab World is capable of democratisation like the former Soviet Bloc. Its a major miscalculation - since the removal of the controlling minority Baathists of Syria is infact an attainable goal that would bring great stability to the Middle East and consideable weaken Irans goals for regional hegemony. It would also restore independence and sovereignty to the beleagued people of the Lebanon who have for thirty years been under effective Syrian occupation both by Syrian military presence there and their proxies of the Hizbollah.