With the United States and Britain calling for action in response to last week's UN report alleging high-level Syrian involvement in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, it's important to step back and look at our own actions.
In particular, the fact that U.S. forces have already conducted military operations on Syrian soil needs to be examined in context. Last week, U.S. military officials and the Bush Administration confirmed what many suspected-U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces. This was done without the consent of Congress, or the American people, and is eerily reminiscent of Nixon's carpet-bombing of Cambodia when the Vietnam War was nearing conclusion. And like Nixon's convoluted reasoning, the Bush Administration would claim that expanding into Syria is necessary in ending the Iraq War. However, with Iraq's prospects for success dampening daily, the last thing the United States need is further expansion of the war on terror.
Now the United States is attempting to convene an emergency session of the UN Security Council in response to the assassination report, urging for appropriate measures to be taken. Punitive economic sanctions against Syria will be pushed by European nations and should be given every chance to work. But any U.S. inclination to send more troops into Syria should be resisted at all costs and diplomacy should be given first priority.
The Bush Administration seems great at starting wars but awful in seeing them through to completion. The last thing the United States needs is another invasion of a Middle-Eastern nation undermining efforts at bringing about the Iraqi stability our politicians espouse.
Whose Web is it anyway?
International efforts at sharing in burden of Internet's administration unsafe
There are members of the United Nations and European Union attempting to wrestle control of the Internet away from the United States. That would be a mistake and the Unites States should resist the initial plans these countries have suggested.
Next month there will be a gathering in Africa of the World Summit on the Information Society, and the purpose is to address Internet governance. The European commissioner for information society and media has called for a "model of cooperation" entailing the United States to make a minor set of compromises, allowing other nations to administer portions of the IP root system in the process. This seems initially reasonable but has the potential of harming U.S. interests due to security concerns and should be rejected on those grounds.
Though the Web is a worldwide phenomenon, U.S. technological prowess is largely responsible for its creation and successes. The United States has allowed other nations to use it for a multitude of purposes, even when doing business and competing against U.S. interests in the process. This is indicative of the United States' longstanding commitment to freedom on the Web and why it should continue to be governed as is. Allowing other nations into the governing process would lead to restrictions placed on access and is a slippery slope. Internationalizing control of the Web could lead to censorship and control issues that harm the interests of U.S. citizens, commerce and the Web itself. One only needs to look at China to see regimes that already deny full web access to their citizenry. How could they be trusted in running it?
The United States has repeatedly shown its commitment to freedom on the Internet and unless it begins to act differently, should continue in its role as the Web's facilitator.
