Re: Syria. I wouldn't worry too much about Straw/Blair hesitancy at the moment. Notice how war is made clearly off the agenda (or "list" to employ US dumbspeak) since "what is important is that Syria agrees to sit down with the United States and United Kingdom and actively cooperate over these questions that have been raised over their current relations with Iraq" (straw speaking on this mornings Today Radio 4 prog). So, they're saying that there is no pre-emptive programme that includes an invasion of Syria/Iran/North Korea/Cuba/France etc but this will soon change since invasion has been made effectively a penalty for "non-cooperation", and we've already seen that the only judges of what constitutes evidence of "non-cooperation" and what scope that cooperation might have and what it might entail for sovereignty of said nation is embodied in the judge/jury/executor - the US. Britain is dealing with domestic hostility to the perpetual war for perpetual peace and is lining itself up to play the Colin Powell role in stage two - "A first I wasn't convinced Iraq needed invading, but then is realised that..." and stew for five seconds of international "debate" before going ahead with original plan regardless. Basically Syria will be judged not to have "complied" or whatever and then its roll tanks - after all the kits already there. We are about to witness what managers like to call "synergy"; two/three (watch out Iran!) invasions for the price of one.

Where's my proof? Well spurious or otherwise Richard Perle's opinions often seem a good guide to where the bodybags will come from next. In this article written in 2000 he makes the case for the Iraqi makeover and he is, if anything, more emphatic regarding Syria.