[Destro]

It was not! And those that try and link the post WW2 occupation of Germany and Japan to Iraq distort history as much as those that try to compare Iraq to Vietnam.

As for is it worth it? I will direct you to George Will's latest words:

To those who say that further internationalization of the occupation of Iraq would lessen U.S. "control," the response is: Control -- such as it is -- should not be the grandiose U.S. objective. Neutralization of Iraq as a source of terror will be sufficient.

But the neo-cons (or whoever) want control, and control of Iraq will have its costs. Costs that may including the loss of Republican power along with American lives.

[Dane]

And I will direct you towards Will's last paragarph of his article.

Regarding the reconstruction of Iraq (when did the Reconstruction of the American South end? The 1870s? The 1970s?), the United States must resolve, as Victoria and Thatcher did, that the possibilities of defeat are unthinkable. They must be, not because a happy Iraq, or a welcome cascade of political dominos, is or ever was likely in the near term, but because U.S. national security, meaning the war on terrorism and rogue regimes, must move on.