HOT PURSUIT

If US forces unearth credible intelligence that Saddam Hussein is hiding out in Syrian territory, they are apparently authorized to cross into Syria to nab him. Whether the Syrians authorize it or not. The JYB first proposed invoking hot pursuit just yesterday. Advantage, JYB!

Right now it's limited to Saddam Hussein only, but don't expect that limit to last. If we heard that one of his sons was in Syria, or that Syria had taken possession of Iraqi nuclear materials, we would expand hot pursuit to include them. For some reason, the British don't get the point and have turned French on the idea:

AMERICAN commanders have promised to launch a “snatch-and-shoot” raid for Saddam Hussein if they track him to a hiding place in Syria.

The proposal, which will fuel tensions between Washington and Damascus, was condemned by British military officers as a breach of international law that would add to regional instability.

Somebody needs to take the entire continent of Europe to chess school. Or teach them how to play the old world-conquest game Risk. Have these people never heard of a feint?

First, the French-German-Russian cabal of spinelessness made the Iraq war unavoidable. Now the Brits may force us to invade Syria. With allies like these...

The point of invoking hot pursuit isn't necessarily to actually cross the border into Syria in actual pursuit of a suspect. Sure, you might have to do that once as a demonstration that you're willing to. But the real point of announcing hot pursuit is so that you don't have to actually pursue anyone. It's to get the Syrians to cough up what they have. If we announce that we'll pursue any Iraqi officials into Syria or wherever we believe they're hiding, we're doing two things. First, we're demonstrating how serious the situation really is. We want these people, and anyone harboring them is endangering themselves in doing so. We're also seeking to force cooperation. We have no love for the Syrians; they have no love for us. We're not natural allies. But, having paved Iraq in less than a month, we've shown that we're more than talk. If we say we're going to do something, we do it. And well. If we have info that puts Iraqi officials in Syria, we first confront Syria directly and request a handover. When Syria fails to cooperate, we announce hot pursuit is in force and let the Syrians know that we'll have Special Forces operating inside Syrian territory to get the suspects ourselves. Hopefully this will force Syria's hand, and it will give up the suspects. If not, we actually go in and get one, making sure to prove that we got them inside Syria, thus implicating Assad's government (it's a police state, and nothing as big as harboring Iraqi fugitivies happens without Assad's knowledge). Then Syria can decide to play ball and give up the rest, or we escalate our incursions, always taking care to prove that the suspects are being nabbed in Syrian territory. Internationally, Syria is on the defensive. We're just cleaning up the Saddamite mess wherever it spreads.

Somebody needs to brief the Brits. If they keep condemning hot pursuit it won't work, and we'll either have to let Syria get away with its crimes or we'll have to invade to correct the situation. Neither choice is particularly attractive, and both are avoidable--if we play hot pursuit correctly.

UPDATE: Thom Friedman says the right approach to Syria isn't military engagement or French-style appeasement, but aggressive engagement. Sounds good to me--and it can include hot pursuit. In fact, I suspect the Bush team has already decided that this type of approach has the best chance of success. (via Sasha Castel-Dodge)