But that isn't why we lost people. We did that to ensure that Saddam could not use state means to support a terror campaign in the United States. And we succeeded in that, and what remains in the way of a new government is what is most likely to succeed in keeping Iraq's state means out of the hands of terrorists. I honestly believe that democracy, with all its attendent risk of failure, is still more likely to succeed than any imposed solution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I hear you suggesting is that we should break Iraq up and then leave. Is this solution, with its attendant and inevitable warring, more or less likely than democracy to result in countries that will support terror organizations? If less, then we should follow your recommended course of action. But I think it's more, much more. IMHO, of course.
>>Is this solution, with its attendant and inevitable warring, more or less likely than democracy to result in countries that will support terror organizations
The problem with bringing democracy is that the majority of the people would vote for a theocracy - Southern Iraq, or even Algeria in 1992.
Our best bet is not to put democracy as a holygrail, but support for secularists, who are the minority.
Let them have their tribal cultures, because a foreign imposed regime will never have legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
What's our priority? Stopping terror or imposing democracy. I say the former, because I don't believe the latter leads necessarily to the cessation of the former, especially if democracy is looked upon as a foreign imposition.
While we impose democracy on Iraq, a Pakistani dictator wins 90% of the votes in the last election; we support the most reactionary monarchy around, the Saudis.
If we were honest, we'd have started with the Saudis. Get our friends to change and we'd have some credibility.