I agree with your comments but I would like to make the following distinction: I did not initially support the Iraq war to make Iraq a safe haven for Jeffersonian democracy, I bought the argument that Iraq was seeking the bomb and if in possession of that bomb it constituted a real and existential threat to the security of the United States. I still have not abandon that thinking today when it applies to Iran.
Therefore, I believe that it is in the interest of the United States to prevent rogue fanatic Islamic states from getting the atomic bomb which they might use, might pass off to terrorists to smuggle across our Mexican border or explode in one of our harbors, which would certainly change the balance of power and turn the oil patch on its head with profound economic and strategic implications for the United States.
To repeat, I did not support that intervention to further George Bush's yearning to create a model democracy for the rest of the Arab and Muslim world to emulate.
What do you think is the correct strategy for dealing with a rogue state with a significant radical Muslim population and a nuclear weapons program (a description that covers Iraq before George W. Bush toppled Saddam and also Iran today)? Would toppling the government and then leaving with the message “behave or we’ll come back and topple the next government” have been a better strategy than a long-term occupation? It seems like many national leaders, even in Islamic countries, are interested enough in the trappings of power to avoid risks that would surely end their rule. Is there a third option that would be superior?