Shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, after Saddam's government was toppled, I wrote an article for my then high school newspaper discussing the possibility of a United States-led invasion of Syria as the next step. It was an article meant to satirize Bush Jr.'s “Mission Accomplished” stunt, goading on all the warhawks in Congress whom I imagined leaning forward expectantly at the announcement, leering over palms rubbing together, saying Great, who's next? It was a joke article, written without a scrap of seriousness; my evidence consisted of such examples as the similarities between the two countries' flags, as if Bush Jr. would get the two confused and order an attack on Syria when he meant Iraq. The most that came of it was the family of a student with Syrian heritage misread the article and thought I was advocating an attack on Syria. These things happen with satire.

Being in that nebulous state of political consciousness where I thought I knew things but really knew nothing (I am still in that state—as are we all—but the fog has lifted some but also I don't realize yet how ignorant I still am, being in the moment), I did not know that there existed a 1996 white paper by the neoconservatives that then directed policy in the White House that advocated exactly that. The white paper is titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” and it was meant for incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Among its stated end goals are the dismantlement of the Ba'athist socialist regimes in Iraq and Syria, seen by neoconservatives as remnants of the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. Iraq was achieved, as was the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon after the 2005 assassination of Rafic Hariri (the UN investigation suggests Syrian involvement but the end results certainly furthered the aims of neoconservative Americans and Israelis), which was a stepping stone to the next phase, the toppling of the Syrian Ba'athists. But the neocons lost the 2008 election. Would we be in Syria today if they had? This is not something I'd considered until recently.

 The irony of today is that, with our greater involvement in the Afghanistan occupation, the Obama administration is recasting Afghanistan as the cornerstone of American foreign policy. Afghanistan is the same wild beast that helped bring down the Soviet Union and convinced the neocons that the key to beating evil was to fight it head on. But we are there today because of the neocons, fighting Islamic fundamentalists instead of communists—history is not circular, but some of its cycles are grimly beautiful. We are still in Afghanistan today because of someone who wants to break with the neocons. The administration has its reasons, but I ask: is it worth the collapse of our own little evil empire?