If there was any doubt that North Korea, a country that claims
to have nuclear weapons and has publicly threatened the United
States, was a more serious threat than Iraq, it was cleared up when
American troops marched into Baghdad, facing only pitiful
resistance.
And now, with Saddam Hussein’s regime ousted, the United
States is turning its attention toward another Middle East country,
one that is probably an even weaker threat than Iraq was
““Â Syria.
Even before riotous crowds raiding museums and stealing ancient
and priceless artifacts were quelled, U.S. officials turned their
rhetoric toward Iraq’s neighbor to the west, saying Syria was
harboring Iraqi regime officials and bringing up the
country’s connections to terrorist groups.
To be clear, Syria is not a friendly nation ““Â they
do, in fact, have connections to terrorist groups that routinely
attack Israel. It appears Syria may have a chemical weapons
program. But Syria, on the other side of the world, poses little
threat to the United States. And, while chemical weapons are nasty,
Syria could hardly challenge Israel’s military, which is
funded by the United States and possesses nuclear weapons. Most
importantly, another war would work to further destabilize the
region and put more young American men and women at risk.
Still, until Tuesday, U.S. officials had indicated that invasion
was not out of the question. In fact, Newsday reported earlier this
week that an intelligence source with access to the Pentagon said
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently called for a plan
outlining an invasion of Syria. The rhetoric cooled a little when
Secretary of State Colin Powell said war was not, as of now, on the
table. Still, he threatened diplomatic and economic sanctions
against Syria.
For Syria’s citizens, such measures could be as
devastating as war. In Iraq, three wars under Hussein’s rule
have had a devastating impact on the country’s economy,
infrastructure and standard of living. And so did international
economic sanctions.
By antagonizing Syria as it does, the United States, while
trumpeting its “liberation” of the Iraqi people,
threatens another people’s basic human necessities: adequate
housing, health care, food, clean water and electricity. If the
United States is serious about playing the role of liberator, this
is not the right message to send to the world’s Arab
nations.
Furthermore, the United States’ uneven world policy does
not send the right message to the international community as a
whole.
North Korea has, among other threats, said it would turn the
United States into a “sea of fire.” Unlike, Syria
““Â or Iraq for that matter ““Â North Korea might
actually have the capability to do so. Kim Jong Il’s paranoid
regime says it has nuclear weapons, and the CIA says they have a
missile that could deliver such a weapon to the West Coast.
The United States treats these threats by calling for
multilateral talks that will probably include offering aid to North
Korea’s suffering citizens if the regime ends its nuclear
programs. It is only with countries that can actually threaten the
United States that we consider a fair approach.
The others, we bully.
How likely is it that Syria, after watching the United
States’ powerful military machine overthrow a neighboring
government, has designs ““Â let alone the capability
““ to threaten the United States?
It is much more likely that the United States, embarking on an
era marked by a new style of unilateral international aggression,
is seeking political and economic control of the Middle East
““ a region separated from us not only geographically, but
also culturally.