3 ms·

Well, this seems an entirely fair point. Starting a civil war is not the same as toppling a government. From my perspective, the difference is irrelevant. The

Well, this seems an entirely fair point. Starting a civil war is not the same as toppling a government. From my perspective, the difference is irrelevant. The broader plan seems to have been to throw the Middle East into chaos by upending every government of consequence in the region -- except Israel. Did the US government succeed in the broader plan? Perhaps mostly? As a US citizen, it sure doesn't feel like a win, or even remotely the correct course of action.

showerst 5y ago
Generally speaking, the US prefers stability over chaos, even among its enemies. Plans with respect to every country have changed over time and author, but I think it's safe to say that many in the US had a vision of the middle east's various leaders being replaced quickly and 'cleanly' by more US-friendly alternatives, hopefully supported by the people who they rule over. In many cases we did things, overtly or covertly, to encourage that. I don't think it's reasonable to assume some hidden master plan to cause chaos. It is however, valid to question what stupid choices we made to get to this point, and if they looked just as stupid at the time.