You did not understand any of it. It was necessary to kill Saddam- and we haven't done it yet- to prove our credentials to the Arabs and Persians for whom revenge is one of the highest principles. It was necessary to storm Baghdad. We did that. Probably we should have destroyed Baghdad. The enemy is Iran and Iran needed to know that America is very dangerous to mess with. But we wimped out and went for befriending the Iraqis and trying to democratize them which is an impossibility for reasons I have been adumbrating in many comments. If we were not going straight to Teheran then we needed to demonstrate our will to destroy our enemy by wiping out Baghdad. It is not a nice liberal thing to do but it is what it takes to make the right impression. This is not a border war. It is a war for Survival. Iraq is a sideshow. Strategically it was not necessary. But were it done properly, then the main event, Iran, might well not be necessary for another generation. Mohammedans understand and react only to defeat so massive that famine is a reality and cities have been enrubbled. They must know that Allah does not will for them to prevail just yet.Then they will sink back into the Lethargy that characterizes Mohammedans when they are not cutting off heads and slaughtering infidels.
If Bush had done that,he would have been ex President Bush today. The Rats and the MSM would have had a field day. Our plan calls for sadammn`s victims to pay for his crimes and America doesn`t work that way(see WW11)