This is important

The January 22 Jerusalem Post reports that

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering provoking a military confrontation with Syria by attacking Hizbullah bases near the Syrian border in Lebanon, according to the authoritative London-based Jane's Intelligence Digest.

In an article to be published on Friday, the journal said multi-faceted US attacks, which would be conducted within the framework of the global war on terrorism, are likely to focus on Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon.

It noted that the deployment of US special forces in the Bekaa Valley, where most of Syria's occupation forces in Lebanon are based, would be highly inflammatory and would "almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops."

Such a conflict might well prove to be the objective of the US, said the journal....

There has been a good deal of talk, as everyone knows, about "moving on to Syria," some of which was quite blatant in the immediate wake of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Official Washington has poo-poohed the notion - but of course it also dismissed the notion in the wake of Afghanistan that any other country was in its sights, which we know was a lie. As things in Iraq deteriorated, the talk faded away; even the real neocon ideologues toned it down somewhat.

But while the discussion was muted, the policy was not.

During the past six months, it added, Washington has increased the US military presence along the Syrian border with Iraq "and, on several occasions, has sent special forces into Syrian territory or penetrated Syrian air space.

"In one incident, US troops pursued suspected Iraqi militants into Syria and fought a running battle that left dozens of people, including some Syrians, dead.

And now it appears to be emerging from the shadows again, and again the groundwork of "threat" is being laid to justify further escalations.

Baghdad (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts said there was some concern Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had gone to Syria, and Washington vowed to carry on searching for such arms in Iraq.

Roberts, a leading member of President Bush's Republican Party, said on Wednesday: "I think that there is some concern that shipments of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) went to Syria." He did not elaborate.

That from the January 21 Washington Post. Now, the "they smuggled it all out to Syria" claim was another one circulated early in the litany of failure-to-find excuses, but no less a notable than Condoleeza Rice shot it down, noting that it was impossible to accept that such a large-scale operation could have escaped US notice.

But who said consistency was a hallmark of the Bush clique? Arguments that were ignored or even rejected before can easily be raised again, finessed as necessary ("he never actually said 'imminent,' you know"), and passed off as entirely consistent with previous policy. Hell, to hear them tell it, the whole Iraq war was Bill Clinton's idea.

Thus, the Post quotes Jane's as saying

"given the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, it remains entirely possible that Washington will soon launch military strikes against Lebanon, regardless of the consequences for wider regional stability,"

such consequences including possibly destabilizing Lebanon and fueling hostility toward the US. So why take the chance? Why make things worse?

The journal noted that the US administration has long considered Damascus "a prime candidate for regime-change," along with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and, possibly, Saudi Arabia.

"Syria, once a powerhouse of Arab radicalism that could not be ignored, has been seriously weakened, both militarily and politically. Washington may feel that the time is coming to oust Assad and the ruling generals."

"Moving on to Syria," just like the reactionaries wanted all along. That's why.