Max Boot has one (while also cautioning patience). One of the things that I don't understand why the administration isn't doing:

Another necessity is to go more aggressively after foreign fighters. They comprise a relatively small percentage of the overall insurgency, but they account for a very high percentage of the most grotesque attacks--80 to 90 percent of all suicide bombings, according to General Petraeus's briefing with Pentagon reporters on April 26. These jihadists are of many nationalities, but most infiltrate from Syria. The Bush administration has repeatedly vowed that Syria would suffer unspecified consequences if it did not cut off this terrorist pipeline, but so far this has been an empty threat. The administration has refused to authorize Special Operations forces to hit terrorist safe houses and "rat lines" on the Syrian side of the border, even though international law recognizes the right of "hot pursuit" and holds states liable for letting their territory be used to stage attacks on neighbors. It's high time to unleash our covert operators--Delta Force, the SEALs, and other units in the Joint Special Operations Command--to take the fight to the enemy. They can stage low-profile raids with great precision, and Syrian president Bashar Assad would have scant ability to retaliate. We also need to apply greater pressure to Iran, which continues to support both Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups in Iraq, but that will be harder to do because Tehran is a more formidable adversary than Damascus.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jeff Goldstein is less than impressed with John Edwards' notion of "supporting the troops":

What kind of cynical political beast would profess to all that—noting a direct threat, recognizing a Security Council that was acting out of its own financial interests, claiming that his own reading of the intelligence led him to believe Iraq that was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, and saying categorically that no, he wasn’t misled in his vote to go to war—and then call for us to pull out, leaving the Iraqi people hanging out to dry, and virtually insuring that the middle east becomes further destabilized?

Or, to put it more bluntly, how craven and ego-driven does one have to be to sell out two entire countries for the remote opportunity he might pick off a few primary victories by pandering to the anti-war base and maybe secure himself a vice presidential nod?

we know the jihadists are in Syria?

The same way we know the WMD are there too?

Maybe our covert forces can doa two-fer.

I see Anonymous Moron is back, in his usual form.

To Do List in Iraq:

1. Leave.

The primary thesis in the Max Boot piece seems to be the need for a larger Iraqi army with our willingness to take the fight into Syria being a desirable but less important factor.

Where such strategies have worked, the results were achieved in years, not months. The same is likely true of Iraq, so patience remains the order of the day. But while Petraeus has the fundamentals right, there are still reforms that could be implemented to improve the odds of success. During a recent two-week visit with U.S. forces in Iraq, I saw a number of problems that need fixing, starting with the inadequate size of the Iraqi army.

Note: "starting with the inadequate size of the Iraqi army"

Max Boot impressed me recently with a favorable review of the criticims leveled by a Colonel Yingling (terrible name for a smart officer) about how our military has been woefully unprepared for counter insurgency -- but then didn't GWB campaign in 2000 on the platform that "nation building" wasn't an appropriate mission for the US military?

Anyway, taking Boot at face value (the Iraqi army is too small) it seems to me that taking on Syria without a larger army is just asking for trouble.

Also, I have read in several places that the Israelis very much prefer that the two-bit thug/hoodlum named Assad rather than a Syrian regime change and the rise to power of one or another fundie Islamic groups such as Muslim brotherhood.

Assad may very well be scum (hard to argue) but he is NOT fanatical Islamicist flavor of scum and thus Mossad can exert a degree of control of his actions.

Max Boot impressed me recently with a favorable review of the criticims leveled by a Colonel Yingling (terrible name for a smart officer) about how our military has been woefully unprepared for counter insurgency -- but then didn't GWB campaign in 2000 on the platform that "nation building" wasn't an appropriate mission for the US military?

Yes, he did, Bill. Then there something happened in the first September after he became president. Perhaps you've forgotten it?

And in fact, "nation building" isn't the appropriate mission for the US military. Perhaps we ought to have some other organization that does that.

Looking yet again at the entire Boot piece, the "go into Syria" aspect appears to be only a very minor portion of a much larger critique and that leaves me curious as to why Rand choose to "cherry pick" that one paragraph.

Anyway, as for why the US does not pound Assad, I suspect that our respect for Israeli regional interests stays our hand against Assad. After all, the war with Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer erupted (in part) because Assad was able to say that his influence/control over Hezbollah had been weakened by the Cedar Revolution.

Give Assad control over Lebanon and he will prevent Hezbollah attacks on Israel so as to prevent Israeli attacks on his own person.