Personally I always thought that the road to Baghdad went through Damascus rather than the other way around. There are historical arguments for both approaches. Given the suspicion that the public would not support a WW-II style series of operations it made sense to invade the center of the problem to change the regional dynamic and threaten both Iran and its proxy Syria. The Iraq operation also gave us a strategic cover over the Gulf which would have been very exposed to Iran and Iraq if the US had struck due East from Lebanon. The Syrian option would however have had other benefits that are now obvious. Allowing a stronger bastion for the long haul, particularly if Bush had been able to push straight into Anbar. Given the French interference that kept the 4th Infantry Division from invading out of Turkey we had 5 years of turmoil that are only now being resolved, at great cost in life and treasure. An assault from the East when the North was denied would have helped.
Jul 6, 2008 - 10:19 am