yesterday the senate considered a bill to impose sanctions on syria. according to the nytimes article, the bill would require sanctions until syria (1) halts the movement of people and materials across the border into iraq that will be used in attacks against u.s. forces, (2) stops its support of terrorist groups and closes terrorists offices in syria, (3) withdraw its forces from lebanon, and (4) cease its development of medium and long range missiles as well as chemical and biological weapons. as i read the article i wondered how exactly syria was supposed to "halting any movement across its border of people and equipment destined for attacks on Americans in Iraq" when the american military can't seem to do it themselves. indeed, iraq as a country under military occupation probably would have an easier time controlling its borders than syria, which lacks much of the modern equipment that the u.s. could use to detect border crossers. even with such modern equipment, the u.s. cannot completely control its border with mexico
i am no fan of syria. aside from its horrible human rights record, the current government of syria has well documented connections to terrorists groups (although the connections are more to groups directed against israel than al qaeda). but if the u.s. wants a bill that actually has a chance of changing syria's behavior, the sanction bill should have incentives that are actually achievable.
