Unlike you I never saw this as nation building...I've always seen this as just one battle in the WOT.
---Well, I figured we'd win this battle. But the Marshall Plan cost a pretty penny. And it didn't do the job--the Cold War buildup did the economic heavy lifting needed to stabilize Germany and the decimated European economies. We have a long way to go with the WOT, and since we're 'rebuilding' already penny-ante economies in Afghanistan and Iraq, we're going to invest a ton into making their world not-so-third. And we haven't even gotten to Syria or Iran yet.
I've argued this point vehemently over the bast three years...Iraq was all about securing stability in the Middle East. It was a way of changing the status quo, giving us political and military leverage in an area of the world ruled by fascist thugs.
---Sure, but after we get rid of the thugs, we have to build up a stable option. The military isn't built for that. And government building anything costs a ton. Better to nuke them and instill fear. I'm only half-kidding.
Securing Iraq, effectively surrounded and isolated Iran. Lebanon was/is the obvious next piece in the puzzle; isolating Syria is paramount to securing a real peace between the Israelis and the PA.
---Well, I don't really care about that latter part. I'd like to see the Holy Land someday, but I don't care who runs it as long as they keep the hotels clean and the beggars off me. I just want America to be secure, not forced to stay somewhere to avoid looking over its collective shoulder. We should be using our military outside the U.S. not one second longer than we have to. And we should have bombed Iran red-hot already. In my less generous moments, I advocated doing the same to Saddam. I wouldn't give a single American soldier's life for ten thousand Iraqis. But I'd sacrifice an army full of `em to protect America from terrorism.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are now being pushed to chose a side...they will chose the opening up of their countries to more freedom to secure their power.
---No argument, the side effects have been nice. But it's still a big budget item. Too bad we can't bill France for it.
Attacking Saudi Arabia as a response to 9/11, as some called for, was never an option. It would have been fool hearty with little in the way of positives. Putting the worlds leading oil supplier in peril would have caused economic catastrophes throughout the world.
---Nah, in some ways I was for that, but I just figured that we wouldn't do it because we'd have every Muslim everywhere agin' us. As it stands, they aren't 100% sure yet. We do need to work on oil dependency, but I don't see how government can do it outside of subsidizing renewable energy, and government always screws up.
Saudi Arabia, and Iran, must transition to a more open form of government in a more peaceful manner if we wish to avoid economic disasters down the road.
---Fat chance. We're encouraging revolution. Some of it will be bloody. Part of me hopes it will be in both those places, just because the Saudi royal family and the Iranian ayatollahs are such bastards.
Iraq was, and always has been, the front-line in the WOT. It sits in the cross of the region and has resources by which its newly formed government can take advantage of when rebuilding and fighting terror. It must succeed if the Middle East is to reform itself.
---No argument on that BUMP.