The liberation of Iraq, and the subsequent "nation building" came about as a consequence of taking action "for our own good".
What is wrong with pointing out the positive consequences of selfish actions (for our own good). And while we are at it, I am willing top make a gentleman's wager that we will "nation build" in Iraq for one tenth as long as we remained in Germany.
Iraq is a base, a beach head, and a target.
That's always been my take. It had the salient combination of being both the most strategic target and the one most readily offering us justification for going in.
I don't think anyone is saying that it's wrong to say "oh by the way, look at the folks we liberated" or even to allow that to be assumed as our mission if it's the only way we can politically sell a necessary mission. What I was saying about Keyes is that he doesn't actually believe that it was an exercises in that sort of meddling, thus he supports it - and when confronted with the seeming contradiction in the nation building rhetoric and his previous statements, he's forced to point out that the nation-building rhetoric is confusing the issue of why we went.
"Iraq is a base, a beach head, and a target."
I have been told and read that a major issue now is force projection (air power), and having land facilities to do so, since carriers are quickly becoming vulnerable to conventional anti-ship weapons(I cannot recall the sun-what missile that goes at mach 4 or whatever)....CMIIAW, but I don't think we ever actually put carriers in the persian gulf during the iraq invasion for this reason.