n Fresh off their victory in Iraq, neo-conservative hawks in the Bush administration like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle have already begun spinning tales of the miraculous transformation to come all across the Middle East, sentiments echoed approvingly by Brendan Cavalier in his Tuesday column, “Smack talking unlikely to translate into military action in Syria” (April 15, pg. 11). The argument, broadly defined, goes something like this: states like Syria and Iran, having watched the campaign unfold in Baghdad with a sense of awe at American military power matched only by the neo-conservatives’ own, will now proceed to fall all over themselves in an effort to look good for America’s eyes, lest they be deemed “next.” They now think Bush is crazy, the argument goes, but he’s really crazy like a fox all it takes is one regime toppled, and the rest will rush to get back in line. America can have peace and security at only minimal cost.

This suggestion is disingenuous and fails to accurately inform American citizens of the likely consequences and costs that a newly activist U.S. presence in the region will entail. Parallels between Iraq and Syria are not limited solely to weapons of mass destruction allegations and B’aath-dominated political landscape. American citizens saw the same arguments that a massive buildup of force could coerce surrender from Saddam Hussein in the months preceding the current war against Baghdad. Bullying another country, either through thinly-veiled threats of military force or through isolating economic sanctions, did not end the Hussein regime in Iraq and is not likely to convince Syria that it has anything to gain by bowing to American pressure. Already regular administration denunciations against the Syrians have begun the process of committing ourselves to their inevitable ouster.

It is highly unlikely that this preemptive war in Iraq will bring total peace and stability to the Middle East; the U.S. National Security Strategy recognizes this fact and calls for any action necessary to maintain a system favorable to American interests in the world. Mr. Cavalier and other apologists for preemptive action abroad would do far better to stand up and declare openly the great cost the United States is undertaking in maintaining this international order overseas and honestly acknowledge the implications that these policies will have for our future in the world. To do otherwise is an insult to American voters and taxpayers whose views this administration is supposed to be representing.

Mr. Cavalier would also do well to be somewhat less selective in his recounting of the facts. U.S. forces are indeed hunting for Iraqi B’aath party administrators and police officers now in many cases not to arrest them, but rather to use them in restoring order to the power vacuum that has opened up in the wake of the Hussein regime’s fall. This is fact which no doubt comes as great comfort to newly liberated Iraqis everywhere.

Colin Cookman

CAS ’05