First, if U.S. security policies in Iraq are going so well, why carry out the raid at all? The answer of course is, those policies are not going so well, especially in the north. The U.S. military believes an increasingly significant number of jihadist guerrillas, especially from the Maghreb region of North Africa, have been filtering into Iraq along the Syrian "communications routes, especially along the Euphrates River, and that they have been having a disproportionate impact on insurgency attacks being carried out in Iraq's northern Kurdish–controlled region.

Second, the attack reflects a potentially far-reaching policy that U.S. President George W. Bush approved in July of permitting U.S. forces around the world to carry out such raids into the territories of states that are neighbors of countries suffering from jihad guerrilla campaigns.

However, as United Press International pointed out on Monday, since then the United States has in fact only carried out one such attack -- into Pakistan on Sept. 3. And the fallout of protest in the wake of that attack seems to have dissuaded Bush from authorizing it again.

Since then, U.S. forces in Afghanistan have fallen back on their established tactic of using Predator unmanned aerial vehicles instead. The rate of such predator drone attacks has accelerated remarkably: Eighteen such attacks have been carried out since August, compared with only five in the previous seven months.

Third, Sunday's attack could have potentially far reaching consequences. Cross-border attacks in any conflict carry the risk of widening it uncontrollably. That is especially the case here, since Syria is the main Middle East ally of Iran, and tensions between the United States and Iran remain high over Tehran's drive to acquire long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. And the risks of escalation are far greater when ground troops are involved in the incident, not just air strikes.

Fourth, the attack raises suspicions that the U.S. government might want to provoke a serious confrontation with Syria, or even with Iran, just a week before the U.S. presidential election. This kind of game is a dangerous and irresponsible one to play, but, given the recklessness with which the Bush administration sent its armed forces charging into Iraq five and a half years ago, it is not entirely inconceivable.

However, the times finally are changing: Opinion polls continue to give Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, a narrowing but still clear margin over Republican Sen. John McCain. Obama's margins of victory are far wider in the decisive battleground states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. Gen. David Petraeus, who heads U.S. Central Command -- CENTCOM -- and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have both clearly indicated they are ready to phase out U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

Despite Sunday's raid into Syria, the days of melodramatic and ineffectual cowboy tactics in the war on terror appear to be finally coming to an end.