An extremely well written piece. Those that have had difficulty in understanding what the author is trying convey need to research the references that have been added. The complexity of the issues in the entire middle east are multi faceted and do require in depth knowledge of the geopolitical context in which they are occuring. The key questions that need to be asked:
1. Who is really gaining from the instability in the region?
2. Why are there so many similarities in the case put forward to attack Iraq also present for that for an attack on Syria?
3. Why is the U.S and it allies funding,training and facilitating extremists to bring about change in Syria, when those are also the sworn enemies of the west?

The first casualty of war is always the truth. The trutch is always harder to swollow.

We can all continue to live in ignorant bliss and swollow the blue pill...........or take the harder decision and swollow the red pill....the more difficult choice I believe.

I don't buy it, omarb.

>>Those that have had difficulty in understanding what the author is trying convey [sic] need to research the references that have been added. The complexity of the issues in the entire middle east are [sic] multi faceted and do [sic] require in depth knowledge of the geopolitical context in which they are occuring [sic].<<

The issues in the middle east are indeed complex.

Building a homily around a couple of Hollywood movies and a children's fairy tale is hardly likely to demystify the geopolitical context, especially if you also require the reader to "research the references".

Vanity-writing in this manner is purely a lookitme exercise.

Are you the writer of the article, by the way? Your cavalier approach to the English language is remarkably similar.

It is almost Aristotelian...

"The trutch is always harder to swollow.
We can all continue to live in ignorant bliss and swollow the blue pill...........or take the harder decision and swollow the red pill...."

Except that on complex issues in a short article more than one swallow does not a summation make.

omarb,

Speaking of fairy tales, here's one that's pertinent to the article, "The Emperor's New Clothes".

No I am not the writer of the article!. All I am saying is that although the author has used characters from fiction to help illustrate his point, it is only in depth understanding of the historical perspectives of the issues that grip the entire middle east that will allow the reader to completely grasp what the author is trying to convey. The piece has been written in an entirely thought provoking manner; but once again understand the history. We can all look at the syria issue from an entirely superficial perspective, but understand that the true desired outcome of the conflict is greater regional instability in the interests of bigger players; whilst helping to provide greater security for others. The brookings institute has clearly described the process (in the mid 2009) by which this is to occur; for those that wish to research it. The underlying philosophy for this was described well by JFK :
“There is another type of warfare—new in its intensity, ancient in its origin—war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat,by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting theenemy instead of engaging him. It preys on unrest.”
Why have boots on the ground when others will do the fighting for you? Hence the funding of terrorists groups........ and as brooking institute describes it ' manufacturing provications'.

Phooey, omarb.

>>The brookings institute has clearly described the process (in the mid 2009) by which this is to occur<<

The Brookings Institution (note the spelling) did no such thing. You have been reading too many conspiracy-dude web sites, and - as so often is the case - omit to check the source.

Here is the document to which you and your fellow conspiracy-nuts refer:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran%20strategy/06_iran_strategy

Below is a typical conspiracy-bogan "analysis" of the document, by one Jurriaan Maessen writing in his very own organ, "Prison Planet" (barf)

"In their Which Path To Persia document the Brookings people openly considered a 'provocation' to escalate things to the point of armed conflict"

Have a read of the actual document, and tell me exactly what is the nature of this "provocation", and where it is described.

I know, it is painful actually having to look for it yourself, instead of relying upon others to interpret it and feed it to you.

Oh, you might also read the bit at the beginning.

"The aim of this exercise was to highlight the challenges of all the options and to allow readers to decide for themselves which they believe to be best... Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or Agency endorsement of the authors’ views."

A current Brookings Institution offering on Iran is here:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2013/09/11-iran-surprises-itself-and-world

Then there's this:

"Like other products of the Institution, The Brookings Essay is intended to contribute to discussion and stimulate debate on important issues. The views are solely those of the authors"

Treating the opinion of academics as formal US policy... that way lies madness.