U.S. military attacks in Syria might damage its ultimate objectives
(From The Japan Times Oct. 31 issue)

米軍の最終目的を損なうシリア攻撃

By launching armed attacks in Syria on Oct. 26, the United States sent another warning to governments that refuse to stop terrorists who operate on their territory. U.S. President George W. Bush has made it clear that he will not stand idly by as terrorists target American troops and some scholars insist he has the right to take action. But the real question is whether unilateral moves will solve the problem or make it worse. The record is not encouraging.

Convinced that the government in Damascus was ignoring charges that terrorists were using Syrian territory to enter Iraq, the United States on Oct. 26 sent four helicopters carrying Special Forces 6.5 km into Syria to disrupt the network. The assault targeted Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih, known as Abu Ghadiyah, who heads Syrian logistics for the insurgent group al-Qaida in Iraq. The U.S. troops killed several men and reportedly seized some others. Syria countered that the attack was "a criminal and terrorist aggression" that killed seven civilians.

U.S. officials say their message is clear: Governments must respond to the threat on their territory or the United States will do it for them. This message has also been sent to Pakistan, where the United States has launched missile strikes against suspected Taliban and al-Qaida redoubts near the border with Afghanistan.

Iran is also paying attention to the U.S. strikes as it is alleged to host camps that train foreign insurgents before they enter Iraq. But Washington should worry whether such unilateral actions will whip up domestic sentiment in Arab countries against it to a level that makes it difficult if not impossible for those governments to cooperate with the United States.

Some see in the moves a new manifestation of the "Bush doctrine." Unlike the pre-emption argument that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq, this new rationale asserts that the United States — or any government — has the right to strike specific targets that seek to do it harm.

American frustration is understandable, but that must not justify actions that only make it harder for Washington to realize its ultimate objectives.

米国はシリア攻撃をもって、テロ活動を黙認する国々への警告を発した。ブッシュ大統領はテロリストの米軍攻撃を許さないと断言。しかし重要なのは単独行動が問題を解決するか悪化させるかで、それに関する楽観的な材料はない。

米当局は、各国が自国の領土での脅威に対応しなければ、代わりに米国が攻撃すると言う。米国はパキスタンの国境地域でもタリバンやアルカイダとみなす者にミサイル攻撃をしかけた。

しかし米政府は、その単独行動が、アラブ諸国の反米感情を煽る可能性を心配すべきだ。

イラク侵攻正当化の際の先制攻撃思想に代わり、米国には自国に損害を与えようとする対象を攻撃する権利があるというのがブッシュ大統領の新たな戦略思想だという意見もある。

米国の不満は理解できるが、最終目的達成をむずかしくする行動を正当化すべきでない。