.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Syria as Cambodia - Someone's pushing this.

On Saturday, I put up a post on a clip from the NYTimes talking about border clashes between US forces in Iraq and Some unspecified Syrian forces. But I want to focus on a particular passage.

Increasingly, officials say, Syria is to the Iraq war what Cambodia was in the Vietnam War: a sanctuary for fighters, money and supplies to flow over the border and, ultimately, a place for a shadow struggle.

That's what jumped out at me, and made me blog it. But what's curious, is that today, I came across this link at Trying to Maintain Rationality. From an opinion piece from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious. The end result was not changed in Vietnam; Cambodia itself was plunged into dangerous chaos, which climaxed in the killing fields, where an estimated 1 million Cambodians died as a result of internal conflict.

Now, I don't know Dan Simpson, the writer of this edop, and I don't know if he lifted this idea from that NYTimes piece, but I find this recurrence of the Syria as Cambodia parallel troubling for a number of reasons.

1) The US left Cambodia a broken state when we abandoned it after withdrawal.

2) This would mark a substantial escalation in the region with our militsry already overstretched.

3) This is particularly troubling when viewed against Bush's recent remarks that the US withdrawal from Vietnam was a mistake and that we should have stayed there.(I'll try to find a supporting link for this, this afternoon.)

Is this the rational the Bush admin is going to use to invade Syria?

Has anyone else run across this occurence of Syria as Cambodia? Is this a trial balloon or a fluke? Is this parallel being pushed by someone? And if so, who? And Why?

Help me out.

UPDATE: Sort of related. The UN report on the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri concluded that it involved high ranking officials of both Syria and Lebanon. Not really a surprise, but significant in the geopolitics of it.

7 Comments:

  • Bush doesn't have the "political capital" to mount another war. He also doesn't have the troops. He has screwed himself and abused the US military by committing it to two wars, and he has run out of gas. He is plagued by scandal at home and failure both at home and abroad. The American public is in no mood to let him get away with much more. His presidency is not a government, as I have written in my blog. It is a PR firm. And not a very good one at that. Bush is a deflated gas bag.

    Look forward to 2006.

    By Blogger NEWSGUY, at 2:51 PM  

  • I've seen reports that we are already conducting illegal Ops within Syria's borders.

    Talking about upcoming elections...I was just thinking about how different things will be if someone like say, Hillary Clinton is elected the next Resident of the U.S..

    Not very much at all, was the thought that came to mind.

    By Blogger JOS, at 3:36 PM  

  • Interesting, but I think Syria is much more of a threat in the Middle East than Cambodia was in Southeast Asia. That goes for Iran too. Personally, I would like to see any clearly identified weapons stashes in both of those nations bombed before they have the chance to use them in Israel.

    As far as Cambodia goes, I think Paul Pot committed genocide on more like three million people. I believe that he is number three on the top ten genocide list right after Stalin, Mao and Hitler. It should be noted that Sadam also makes the top ten genocide list, but for most liberals that fact is simply irrelevant.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:53 PM  

  • Thank you, anonymous. I really like criticism that has rational arguments.

    And I think that you're right that Syria represents a far greater threat regional than Cambodia did.

    I don't know about the bombing though, with the military overstretched, we couldn't really back it up with any real threat of ground forces, and both countries have the ability to greatly escalate the quantity and efficacy of the attcks agains the US troops currently in Iraq.

    And one question/clarification. I don't know if the last clause about liberals was intended to include me. I don't think I can really be termed a "liberal" in an absolute sense based on my voting record.

    But I am big anti-Bush, I don't like this fusion of religion and politics this group of republicans is selling, and I am certainly to the left of this administration on almost every issue. So, yeah, if your reference point is Bush, Santorum, Brownback, then I am liberal.

    I do hope you'll come back and comment again.

    Thanks!

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 7:31 AM  

  • There have been a number of people writing at DailyKos about Bill O'Reilly leading the charge on this.

    check this out http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/20/still-pushing-wmd-myths/

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:14 AM  

  • That's an interesting link. Thanks. I'll head over to DailyKos and see what I can find.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 10:29 AM  

  • And here is a brand new AP story "Rice: Syria must be held accountable"

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051021/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_syria

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home