THE BIG WAR IS GETTING CLOSER

I have made the argument many times that since 9/11 George W. Bush has been trying to prevent the next World War by fighting smaller, limited wars. Using a relatively limited war-making power, he sought to eliminate the Islamist safe-haven of Afghanistan and one of the most vicious secular terrorist supporters in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also hoped that, in the aftermath, democracy would take root in both countries, thereby creating not only a deterrent to our enemies, who would see two examples of like-minded regimes being thrown onto the dustpile of history, but also create an encouraging example for all those in the Middle East who yearn for democracy, prosperity and religious tolerance. The President may still believe that it is possible, and certainly that it is a worthy mission for a great nation. But, at least in my view, it is becoming ever more clear that the process was flawed from the beginning.

When the United States finally was attacked directly on our own soil in 9/11, it should have been clear to all that this was simply the culmination in a long war that started when the Iranians took our diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979, which was an act of war that was not met with the violence that it required. Time after time in the years that ensued our interests or people were attacked, often by the non-state proxies of the mullahs in Iran, and their sympathizers and allies throughout the Muslim world. Our feeble response to each incident merely emboldened our enemies until, finally, one with enough vision and guts and capability managed to pull off a spectacularly successful attack against us at home. That man, Osama bin Laden, thought that we would retreat, as we had in the past. We did not. But we also did not resort to the total war called for in the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine says states that support terrorists should be treated exactly the same as the terrorists. If we follow that logic then we should have launched military operations against Iran and Syria in 2001. Of course, President Bush really didn't mean what he said. History may yet prove him right not to follow the logic of his own doctrine. Instead, he chose to try and limit the war.

We may be reaching the end of those limits. Our efforts to create democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq are being held back by the continued interference of the Iranians and Syrians in Iraq and the Iranians and some Pakistani elements in Afghanistan, as well as the international Islamist terrorists and the home-grown insurgents in both countries. Stability cannot be achieved in either country until those outside agitators are forced to cease and desist. Meanwhile, the Iranians are now led by a true Hitlerian fanatic, who apparently believes it is his mission to start the global war which will precede the appearance of the "Hidden Imam". For all of his efforts, President Bush may still end up having to resort to the kind of total war he has successfully resisted until now.

With Israeli finally striking back hard after many months of provocations from Hamas and Hezbollah, our hand may be forced. The President might like to wait until the diplomatic process plays out completely regarding Iran's nuclear program. But, if the Iranians and Syrians through their Hamas and Hezbollah proxies continue to pressure the Israelis, they may strike back directly against the Iranians and Syrians. With over 100,000 American troops in Iraq, a country that borders both Iran and Syria, how can the U.S. stay out of the resulting conflict?

The big war is looming. Will the kidnapping of a few Israeli soldiers be seen by history in much the same way as the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne is now seen? The spark that lit the powderkeg of a World War?