Charles Gray wrote:

Maybe not-- if we get the joy of having an Iraqi Northern Ireland
three years from now with all sides shooting at the U.S. troops who
are there-- with the other alternative being pulling out and watching
the nation fall apart, you'll start to see many people coming forward
proclaiming how stupid a decision it was. (Many of them who were i
nteh cheerleading section for the invasion when it looked like it
would be a slamndunk).
The Easy part was the invasion-- but this conflict will not be a
success until the U.S. can pull out leaving a stable government that
is at least a decent authoritarian republic. Our track record on that
isn't nearly as good as it is in the military area.

I think you're comments are generally true.

I personally don't require that Iraq (or Afghanistan) becomes a
liberal democracy. It would be preferable, but the only requirement
I would demand, is a government that is not especially driven to
undermine American interests or security.

The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
US really requires. I can't say that an Iraq with three (or more)
warring factions is really worse than one with a strong ruthless
central leader openly hostile to the US.


SMH