From a strategic point of view, after taking Iraq and Afghanistan, we had Iran sandwiched between the two, just waiting to be destroyed. (To follow this line of thinking, forget all assets and dollars that we dedicated to rebuilding and winning the hearts and minds of Muslim scum.) Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan would serve as the base to destroy Islam. Syria would be minor battle if they did not stop supporting terrorists and destroy their weapons of mass destruction.
Jordan would be shaking in their boots and do anything we would want. (Such as providing the so-called Palestinians a home of their own on the East Bank of the Jordan River.) Turkey would recognize our strength and would be forced in a direction of an even more secular government.
The big problem America would have is picking a fight with Saudi so we could destroy Mecca and suck their oil dry along with Iraq and Iran's.
Bush was more intent on nation building, and it had nothing to do with the American nation. I would have much preferred an approach that crippled Islam at its core, secured a Jewish state free of terrorists, and to use middle east oil to fund the war. The end game would be the absolute destruction of OPEC, an illegal cartel. Take oil out of the equation and Muslims will be living in the 8th century where they belong.
As a nation we never clearly identified our true enemies - ALL MUSLIMS and all Islamic nations.
Me too. I supported our actions against Afghanistan and Iraq. Not so sure if our going after Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do now. We WERE justified to do so but since Saddam's Iraq was the enemy of Iran we should have left things alone there. That's what I think now.
Libya was not even close to justification. Neither is Syria.