But we're comparing Iraq with destabilizing a country, re-securing it, establishing a relationship with the leaders, etc.. and then building a pipeline.

Iraq is further along in that process.. than starting anew with Syria.

> Except that at the time, Iraq was itself a highly unstable conflict zone.

I fail to see how turning Syria into an unstable conflict zone would help.

Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria. Those who were backing the opposition factions were no doubt hoping for a quick, orderly transition of power. But obviously it didn't work out that way.

> Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria.

That's precisely the point. Nobody set out to cause long-lasting, destructive conflict in Iraq as well.

Furthermore, in Iraq there was a multinational coallition allocating hefty amounts of resourses to ensure a clean politically advantgeous outcome, while the war in Syria would be, according to that conspiracy theory, at best a covert operation leading to a drawn out conflict.

Does it ever work out that way? This myth of USA military effectiveness isn't promoted in order to ensure transfers of power or [snicker, haha] natural gas in pipelines. It is promoted to ensure the continuing transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to armaments manufacturers and their sockpuppets in government and media.

Also Iraq is a buffer zone between SA and Iran which prevents Iran invading and taking control of the pipeline.