Congressman Nick Rahall, a Democrat from West Virginia who has traveled to the Middle East for 30 years to meet with leaders there, also concludes that the Bush administration mishandled the raid. Syrian civilians “lost their lives in an unfortunate attempt by the previous administration to once again mislead, bully, and isolate a regime,” he says in an interview from Washington. Such attacks across borders have a “disastrous effect on American foreign policy. They alienate civilians. The cowboy diplomacy of the past led America to some of its lowest [public-opinion] ratings around the world.”

At least one Syrian official is convinced that then vice president Dick Cheney and the neoconservative faction in the White House advocated the raid in an effort to derail future U.S.-Syria relations. That might explain Syria’s muted reaction to an attack that was, under international law, an act of war. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mekdad says Syria was in no condition to respond militarily against the much stronger U.S. He suggests that the Bush White House was interested in creating a roadblock for its successor.

“The neocons and their headmaster, Vice President Cheney, wanted to create problems so that a rapprochement between the [Obama] administration and Syria will be made more difficult,” he says. The Syrians decided to take their lumps and bide their time. That calculation may have paid off.

In 2004, the Bush administration had slapped Syria with economic sanctions and, in 2005, withdrawn its ambassador from Damascus. The Obama administration has taken a different tack, having sent four diplomatic and security missions to Syria and having agreed to re-install an ambassador, although no name or date has been announced.

The American public may not learn the full details of the al-Sukariya raid for some time, perhaps not until classified U.S.-government documents are released, years in the future. But the Arab world certainly believes the Syrian version of events, which contributes to growing anti-U.S. anger in the region. The perception that the U.S. launches raids and missile attacks without regard for civilian casualties is widespread in the region.

While the Obama administration doesn’t appear ready to attack Syria again, it has recently begun replicating similar tactics in Pakistan. Instead of helicopters and troops, the Pentagon is using unmanned drones controlled from the U.S. to fire missiles at suspected insurgents. Locals complain that the missiles frequently kill innocent civilians. Seventy-six percent of Pakistanis oppose such drone attacks, according to a public-opinion poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, a nonprofit loosely affiliated with the Republican Party and funded mostly by the U.S. government.

In Washington’s corridors of power, far from the battlefield, it may appear perfectly reasonable to attack countries that don’t or can’t stop terrorists. While national sovereignty is an important principle, the government argues, it must be weighed against clear and present threats to America. However, these cross-border incursions inevitably cause civilian deaths and exacerbate anger toward America.

Baer says Washington officials think they “have a monopoly on truth because we have the biggest military in the world.” When asked directly if he thinks that national sovereignty is an outmoded concept, he responds ironically, “That’s a very good argument. The fact that gangs in Los Angeles have taken over parts of L.A. certainly gives Mexico the right to invade. The police can’t control the area. Let the Mexican government send in the helicopters.”

During the long drive from al-Sukariya back to Damascus, we mull over what we’ve learned in the past eventful weeks. We are so engrossed that not even Qassem’s DVD-watching-while-driving arouses much anxiety.

We realize our own questions are shared by Middle Eastern countries and U.S. allies around the world. For them, it doesn’t matter if the al-Sukariya raid killed a terrorist or not. The salient point is that the Bush administration illegally crossed national borders and killed innocents. They want to know if the Obama administration will continue such policies or if America intends to commit its power and prestige to diplomacy and honest compromise. If not, will those who disagree with the administration in power find themselves targeted in America’s crosshairs, like the farmers of al-Sukariya?

The world watches and wonders, and so do we.

Freelance foreign correspondent Reese Erlich has covered the Middle East for 23 years and is the author of three books. His fourth, Conversations with Terrorists, will be published in September 2010. Peter Coyote has appeared as an actor in more than 130 films and television programs and is the author of numerous articles and the recently re-issued book Sleeping Where I Fall. He is currently working on a new book, Lies We Like to Believe, and three television pilots.