There is some truth in what you've said, but the fact is that Saddam controlled the factions of Iraq with a death grip in order to have any kind of stability there, and most Iraqis did live a life of far more stability under him (repressed stability though it was) than we are going to provide them.

Your observations are several years late, which makes them pretty useless. Any information about Iraq BD (before dubya) told us that for centuries, Iraq has been one of factions killing off factions. To presume that we were so obviously of sound mind and good intentions that Iraqis should instantly comprehend what being a democracy even meant, was ridiculous from the outset. To presume that simply because our intentions were good (which I never actually pretended to presume, but will allow you to), Iraqis should hale us as heros and just sit down and ask, "What now, oh kind sirs?" was idiotic.

Iraqis did not ever live a life in which democracy could thrive. To have a democracy, is to require being able to be tolerant of those who do not share your beliefs or lifestyle. Too many Middle Eastern factions do not have that basic ability, and certainly the ruling factions in Iran and even Saudi do not. How were we to teach tolerance, when we didn't even recognize the lack of it?

If most of what is happening in Iraq is between Iraqis, why are we threatening Iran for sending factions across their border? Why do we leak the news that nuclear weapons have been moved across state lines? Not to intimidate Iraqis, but Iran.

I have a hard time putting up with people who insist on invading another country that isn't even a threat to anyone, and then get all indignant because that country doesn't come to heel.