[Sans-Culotte]

I agree that the war should be "more serious", but the thrust of the article is that Bush made a mistake by taking on Iraq instead of Iran. Had it been the other way around, the article would have said we underestimated Saddam and his Al Qaeda ties, and should have attacked him first.

In short, the article IMO is not about how to fight a "more serious" war, but how Bush lied, led us into the "wrong wae", etc.

[Smokin' Joe]

...the thrust of the article is that Bush made a mistake by taking on Iraq instead of Iran. Had it been the other way around, the article would have said we underestimated Saddam and his Al Qaeda ties, and should have attacked him first.

COrrect assessment aobut the article, imo.

Anyone with a map can see the importance of Iraq in long term planning, Afghanistan fits, too, not just because it was the Taliban stronghold and because the Russians did not fare well there.

I think the geopolitical setup got stymied when the third launching point, the UAE, was slapped down over the P&O deal, which may have been the 'gimmie' for massing an invasion on yet a third Iranian border. ymmv.