Israeli air raid in Syria today brings the problem of pre-emptive military actions against sovereign states into clear focus. The bombing raid by Israel was the first such military action against Syria in almost thirty years. Israel claims it was designed to hit a terrorist training center, and as retaliation for last weeks restaurant bombing in Haifa.

However, in the tit-for-tat world of violence in the Middle East there should be an acknowledgement of the difference between bombings carried out by individual suicide bombers and State Supported Military bombings carried out against targets in neighboring States. If the UN Security Council sits on it's hands in response to these kinds of actions by Israel; it would seem reasonable to argue that the UN should agree that Syria is within it's right to bomb Sharon's Headquarters.

In other words, as from the LA Times Article today: "The predawn bombings unveiled a sharp shift in Israeli policy. After three years of battle in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel is now declaring the right to chase armed Palestinian factions into their bases in foreign countries. It's a philosophy that echoes the controversial doctrine of pre-emption that has driven U.S. foreign policy since Sept. 11, 2001."

If the International community acquiesces to this political madness where does it end? India bombs sites in Pakistan, or Pakistan bombs sites in India? Russia bombs sites in some of their former Republics? Mexico bombs the homes of vigilante ranchers in Arizona? And how can the US support a censure of Israel, given its entanglements in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

Wolfowitz, Rice, and Company might be brilliant scholars; but it appears they are dumb as a stone to propose and support pre-emptive actions against States that are considered a threat. Many countries have some elements in it that can be perceived as a threat to some other country. But does it follow that, for example, America should consider bombing suspected drug cartel sites in Columbia to "Win the War on Drugs"?