Minus two

Apparently still unable to make up their minds about who they want to attack next (or, perhaps more accurately, who they think they can convince the rest of us to support attacking next), the warhawks have again turned their attention to Syria. Friday's Jerusalem Post (Israel) reports that

[t]he US is contemplating incursions into Syrian territory in an attempt to kill or capture Iraqi Ba'athists who, it believes, are directing at least part of the attacks against US targets in Iraq, a senior administration official told The Jerusalem Post.

The official said that fresh sanctions are likely to be implemented, but added that the US needs to be more "aggressive" after Tuesday's deadly attack on a US base in Mosul. ...

"I think the sanctions are one thing. But I think the other thing [the Syrians] have got to start worrying about is whether we would take cross-border military action in hot pursuit or something like that."

Consistent with the established pattern, claims are being raised that Syria is linked to attacks on US forces - claims based on supposedly clear evidence which we, of course, are not allowed to see.

The senior official said US anger increased substantially after a prolonged incursion into Fallujah last month, which revealed "how much of the insurgency is now being directed through Syria." The US has not publicly detailed the evidence it has regarding the extent to which attacks are being organized from within Syria. But a report in The Times of London on Thursday suggested not only that Syria is becoming a base for Iraqis to operate, but that Syrian officials are themselves involved.

So rumors and leaks are the means to create the atmosphere of threat that justifies military action. We've been down this road before, many times. And we always seem to wind up in the same sort of bloody mess. When we will ever learn?