Syrian officials emitted "wails of outrage" after the U.S. attack on Syrian soil on Sunday, said The Washington Post in an editorial. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad apparently thinks he can "sponsor murders, arms trafficking, infiltrations, and suicide bombings in neighboring" Iraq and Israel without retaliation. He might want to "rethink his strategy."
Syria got what it deserved, said the Los Angeles Times in an editorial, but it was "strange timing." Syria has been "showing unusual cooperation and willingness to negotiate with the West," so why now? Maybe President Bush figures that, with election day near, someone else will have to pick up the mess if this last "experiment in Middle Eastern cowboy diplomacy" blows up.
The attack certainly complicates things next door in Iraq, said Robert Reid in the Associated Press via Yahoo News, where it might get harder to "win approval for a new U.S.-Iraq security deal." Many Iraqis resent how little control they have over what American forces do, and this stokes fear that the U.S. might use Iraq as a base for attacks on its neighbors.
All the "political posturing" doesn't matter, said correspondent Michael Yon in Pajamas Media. The U.S. had every right to target terrorists who send explosives and fighters into Iraq through Syria. So let Syria and Iran scream—we can take the blame and "give the new Iraqi government cover to do what has to be done."
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- The 10 best networking tips for people who hate networking
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- 11 scientific studies that will restore your faith in humanity
- Why the West should let Russia have eastern Ukraine
- 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to
- Scottish independence is another financial crisis waiting to happen
- Why you should stop believing in evolution
Quake comparison: Chile vs. Haiti
- Why baseball is America's most dangerous spectator sport
- The elusive 'It factor' in presidential politics
Subscribe to the Week