??? Would you care to elaborate?
And military intelligence won't look at such facts and then tell the politicians: "Sure, you'll be home by christmas!" But in this conflict, I think you can say US politicians used military intelligence rather as a public disinformation tool instead of using their information for conflict planning.
To be precise, something like a democratisation process would NORMALLY take about 5 - 10 years in my eyes, until you can be sure that democracy is stable enough so you can leave the country.
this is a very good article on this topic:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html
excerpts:
If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades
[...]
The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq did not just blur this distinction; it turned the entire model upside down. The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made. It went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq.
-Paul R. Pillar