Is an invasion of Syria MORE likely if its troops leave Lebanon?

[David__77]

This thought occurred to me: many neo-conservatives are cheerleading for aggression against Syria. There are numerous complications to this potential endeavor that did not exist in the case of Iraq, but one clearly stands out: the Israel question. Iraq does not border Israel and has only had conflict with Iraq in the past from afar.

However, Israel borders Syria and occupies a portion of Syrian territory. Further, the Syrian presence in Lebanon, and Lebanon's role as sanctuary for Hizb Allah guerrillas fighting Israel is a serious complicating factor for US war plans, if they indeed exist. If the US were to invade Syria while that country occupies Lebanon, it would simultaneously have to invade Lebanon in order to wipe out Syrian military resistance. This would necessarily lead to the Israel question becoming of overarching importance in the war theater.

Perhaps people wishing for peace in the middle east should not be so hasty to desire Syria accede to Washington's demands. Nothing should be done to facilitate further US aggression in the region.

[Stop_the_War]

1. Neo-cons see this as an opportunity to grab both Syria and Lebanon......

[Stop_the_War]

2. kick

[bigtree]

3. I think Bush and the neocons are trying to spark some resistance

from the Shi'ite majority and those parties opposed to Israel that would be labeled as a threat to Israel. Then Bush could try to justify our troop's involvement there in 'defense' of our ally.

[frictionlessO]

4. Theres a very real possibility that if Syria withdraws the militias

will not disarm as also stated in the UN res in this regard.

If the militias don't disarm then the possibility of further destabilization and a probable civil war could ensue. That is when the US and/or Israel would be likely to step in with "valid" reasons. My hope is that the UN will head them off at the pass on it.

[David__77]

5. "UN head them off?" That's quite a laugh line...

...why would they care about the UN except insofar as it serves their interests? The only to "head them off" is fierce military resistance.

[frictionlessO]

6. Sorry you really confused me with that last line...

Im in agreeance with you about them not caring about the UN. What I meant was the UN could put in the peacekeeping force minus the US and Israel, if it came down that one was actually needed.

[bigtree]

7. there are U.N forces there now

you won't see any more U.N. involvement without the U.S. as a dominant force. That's what Bush is now orchestrating in concert with the French and others.

[frictionlessO]

8. Well then I guess PNAC wins....

shame really because it was a good Earth.