Syria--
I would be very critical of any information provided by Ariel Sharon in terms of Iraqi WMD "stockpiles" being moved throughout Syria and across borders. Don't get me wrong, there are several very real reasons for both Israel and America to distrust Syria. The occupation of Lebanon stands as just one example.
However, Sharon wants to get rid of Syria as aproblem for his nation, and I think he'd love the USA to do it for him, in keeping with the war on terror, and all.
David Kay said that the movement has been undetermined, and to immediately jump to the conclusion that this movement consists of "stockpiles" of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons would be jumping to conclusions, and would be sort of like "a train that seemed "to always be going in the same direction.""
Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to Syria (if I may be so bold) to make these acusations and not act on them. At this point, the IAEA has been scolding Syria for not coming clean on their
own weapons capabilities. I don't know that Syria would be stupid enough to take on said WMD, were they to even exist.
Ammar Abdulhamid had a good piece on Syria with the Brookings Institute:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed...id20040713.htm
Each misstep and misstatement Damascus has made in the past few years, especially in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, are being logged and documented by its enemies worldwide, especially in the US, so that a case can be built up for the regime's outright removal one day.
I think Syria is in a lot of hot water, and they certainly deserve the scrutiny. However, they have kept talks open with the Western powers, and IMO seem to be more responsive than countries such as Iran, for example. Syria justifies is terrible regime, as well as its stubborn approach to diplomacy, as "sticking to national imperatives." With that said, does a country, isolationist in mindset, go out of its way to accomodate "stockpiles" of WMD, especially when the eyes of the world are already rested on them....?