Still haven’t received any emails making a calm case for why this is either impossible or a bad idea. I’m eager to be better informed. This made some sense:
Perhaps the reason for not using the military to secure the Syrian border has something to do with a particular sensitivity to the somewhat widely held belief that the US has its military eyes on Damascus. Perhaps it would not look great to be amassing our forces on that border if our notion is not a military incursion therein. It would force the Syrians to deploy forces to their own border and would result in a rather dicey stand-off, I think.
Anything to put Damascus on edge seems like a good idea to me. And we could tell them we’d withdraw the troops if they policed their side. Any military experts or strategists out there who can help me flesh out the pros and cons?
COURT SPECULATION: Just passing this along. Some of you have asked who I’d like on the court. The answer is that I don’t have the time to investigate the paper trails of everyone who could be nominated. My general view is that presidents should be given wide lee-way in getting whom they want. I supported Bork and Thomas (although I believed everything Anita Hill said). Still, I’d prefer an economic and social libertarian, rather than some natural law theocon. Obviously.
The Dish 