This was a desired outcome of the Iraq War: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2935969.stm

> There are some in the Bush administration who hope that the fall of Saddam Hussein will be followed by a "democratic domino" effect across the Middle East.

> ...Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary... has said that Iraq as the "first Arab democracy" would "cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran, across the whole Arab world."

> ...specifically mentioned Syria, which according to CIA reports to Congress has a chemical weapons programme. Although not formally a member of the "axis", Syria is, in the eyes of officials like John Bolton, very much a candidate.

The Iraq war had more to do with Iran..

An fantastically dumb statement. USA is the biggest backer of Saudi Arabia — a country which is basically a Middle-Eastern North Korea.

Here is the context you are missing: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/08/the-larouchie-de...

Classicists and grand strategists tend to view history in cyclic terms, with long-running conflicts echoing through the centuries.

I would never accuse US foreign policy of being ideologically coherent. I'm just pointing out that this was an explicit goal of the US invasion of Iraq, direct from the horses' mouths. Are you calling me dumb for stating that, or them dumb for being incoherent?

If you're going to blame the US, might want to reach back a bit further too.

We've been "intervening" in the Middle East long before Obama.

Just to consider the mayhem that ill-thought wars have caused in the ME, just so americans at home can have petty arguments like that

Did someone say Mosaddegh?!

Syria definitely didn’t have any problems before Obama. Al-Assad and his father were totally peaceful, definitely weren’t razing towns for decades.

The half-assed intervention leading to a protracted conflict in Syria has arguably been much more damaging to American interests than Iraq was, not to mention screwing up Syria a lot worse than it already would have been. Unless there was some pretty crazy stuff going on beyond the public eye to justify it, it's a strong candidate for America's biggest foreign policy blunder of the century (so far). Actually, I'm struggling to think of something definitely worse since Vietnam, in those terms. It's been (very) low-cost in American lives & money compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, but just horrible for US interests and for general international stability, in the Middle East and Europe, especially, and it hasn't even done Syria any favors to offset that.

Iraq and Afghanistan—either one, on its own—surely did more direct harm to America itself, however, but in sheer foreign-policy terms? Our actions in Syria look really bad from that perspective.

I write that as an Obama voter, and Iraq war protester.

This is another neo-liberal talking point. Its like Saying Libya under Gaddafi was horrible too blah blah. You know how it is like right now?

It's like saying China should have dropped freedom bombs on US during trump leadership so Americans can be saved.

Somebody get that man a peace prize!