It is commonly held that "those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it."

Or "insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results."

Despite this received wisdom, the fix is apparently in regarding resolution of tensions in the Middle East. Following the "flimsy pretext" model of prosecuting "pre-emptive conflict resolution," in order to teach the uppity Lebanese militia a lesson, it's time to "shock and awe" the nation of Syria.

Or so says the buzz among some of the GOP's most breathless defenders, anyway:

I have long thought that maybe the U.S. should have gone after Syria's Baathist regime before Iraq's. Maybe history is giving us a second chance to do the right thing. No, we don' t need to invade and occupy Syria. Just help Israel destroy Assad's military with massive air power, and let his regime fall.

Because that worked out so well for us in Iraq???

(Note the use of the phrase, "history is giving us a second chance." Does this mean that we blew our first chance to do the the right thing? In common usage, "second chance" often means what happens when you get off of a wayward path in life -- addiction, crime, infidelity, e.g. -- and start living in sobriety. Or maybe this is code for the sort of body armor that our troops have had to supply for themselves.)

(rant continued on the flip...)

Setting that aside for the moment... If we're going to evaluate our chances for success in a wider war in the Middle East using our current experience as a yardstick, I'd say that this assessment goes somewhere past "sunny optimism" on the confidence meter, right smack into the range of "hyper-realistic delusion." The American people were promised a prompt end to the conflict in Iraq, a mission accomplished, and we weren't let in on the idea (at least early on) that occupation would be an eventuality.

So let's just assume that this comes to pass. The Hobbs-ian joint US-Israeli effort destroys Assad's military. What's Israel going to do then? Occupy Syria? You see how well that Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank has gone as a matter of policy. And talk about repercussions -- if anyone thinks the insurgency in Iraq is a tough nut to crack, wait until Israel starts cracking down on Arab populations in and adjacent to the Golan Heights getting restive because of the nearby bloodshed among their brethren. Or did it not occur to anyone that the Golan Heights is still a disputed border region between Syria and Israel (not to mention the three-way dispute over Shebaa involving Israel, Lebanon, and Syria)?

And if the government in Damascus falls as a result of this action, what then? UN occupation? Joint US-Israeli "nation building" exercises? In just what universe would this outcome be welcomed? Who's throwing the roses and chocolates this time, greeting the US as liberators?

I think the outcome here would be more than predictable. Wider conflict. Insurgency. Counter-insurgency. Suicide bombs. Civil war. No end in sight.

On to Iran. (And beyond! Whee!)

Lather, rinse, repeat.