THE NEW CAMBODIA

This story from the New York Times caught my eye this morning. It describes some of what is happening along the Iraq-Syrian border. It also brought to mind a historical analogy:

A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials.

The firefight, between Army Rangers and Syrian troops along the border with Iraq, was the most serious of the conflicts with President Bashar al-Assad's forces, according to American and Syrian officials.

It illustrated the dangers facing American troops as Washington tries to apply more political and military pressure on a country that President Bush last week labeled one of the "allies of convenience" with Islamic extremists. He also named Iran.

One of Mr. Bush's most senior aides, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, said that so far American military forces in Iraq had moved right up to the border to cut off the entry of insurgents, but he insisted that they had refrained from going over it.

But other officials, who say they got their information in the field or by talking to Special Operations commanders, say that as American efforts to cut off the flow of fighters have intensified, the operations have spilled over the border - sometimes by accident, sometimes by design.

Some current and former officials add that the United States military is considering plans to conduct special operations inside Syria, using small covert teams for cross-border intelligence gathering.

The broadening military effort along the border has intensified as the Iraqi constitutional referendum scheduled for Saturday approaches, and as frustration mounts in the Bush administration and among senior American commanders over their inability to prevent foreign radical Islamists from engaging in suicide bombings and other deadly terrorist acts inside Iraq.

Increasingly, officials say, Syria is to the Iraq war what Cambodia was in the Vietnam War: a sanctuary for fighters, money and supplies to flow over the border and, ultimately, a place for a shadow struggle.

While I agree with the use of the Cambodia analogy, and while I find nothing wrong with the tenor of this article (and I recommend that you read the whole thing), I hope most people reading the article will understand that the Iraq War is not going the same route as the Vietnam War.

First, the insurgents in Iraq do not have the active, overt help of a nation-state. There is no Ho Chi Minh Trail equivalent and, especially important, there is no NVA equivalent in the field fighting with them.

Second, they do not have a superpower sponsor, as was the case with the Viet Cong and the NVA.

Third, the government in South Vietnam was never seen as legitimate by the people of South Vietnam, and for good reason. In Iraq, the people have voted once, are voting again today, and will vote again in December. While violence has permeated the process, more Iraqis are participating at each juncture.

The war will go on. But, if I am right about what is happening in the political process, then inexorably the Iraqi government will grow stronger and more self-sufficient, and the insurgency will suffer as a result. When the rulers of Syria (and Iran) decide it no longer pays to support the insurgents, the war will be over.