OK, I will explain. (I wish I were paid for doing it).
The chief reason for not going to Iraq was that Iraqi regime (authoritarian secularist nationalism) was the expression of natural equilibrium for the entity composed of three disparate societies and located in the middle of Muslim world.
That is why USA under Ronald Reagan and Western Europe and Soviet Union supported Baath regime. This regime was the bulwark against Islamism and main hope for modernization of the region.
You see, democracy is a form of luxury, you can afford it when you are advanced and prosperous, either when you have large educated middle class or many slaves to support you (like in Athenian democracy). In a messy situations like XXc Iraq or European "Dark" Ages the monarchical or dictatorial power was the only VIABLE solution (with the exception of small rich city states based on commerce like Florence or Novgorod).
Now there are two most likely outcomes:
If dogmatic Wilsonian approach is followed the three divergent loose cannons will be released. Shiite South with strong ties to Iran and subversive impact on Gulf emirates (with large Shiite population), practically independent Kurdistan which will be on collision course with Turkey (Turkish south east is Kurdish), and Sunni middle in control of huge capital city without natural resources, trained in war and politics, bent on revange.
The second possible outcome is RESTORING of the equilibrium by bringing back secular dictatorship disguised by intense "democratic" rhetoric.
"You see, democracy is a form of luxury, you can afford it when you are advanced and prosperous, either when you have large educated middle class or many slaves to support you (like in Athenian democracy). In a messy situations like XXc Iraq or European "Dark" Ages the monarchical or dictatorial power was the only VIABLE solution (with the exception of small rich city states based on commerce like Florence or Novgorod)."........now I'm sure you will exactly explain to us how rich and how advanced the 13 colonies were in 1776, now. Inquiring minds would like to know. Thanks Mo.
Your screenname is misspelled. There is a "P" where there should be an "H".
Ahh, the old realpolitik argument. Better to have a stable brutal dictatorship, like, say Stalin, than a risky, unstable, unpredictable Democracy. After all, brutal dictatorships are so reliable in their actions that it gives comfort to the State Dept.
The devotés of realpolitik prefer the "stability" of an Iraq under Saddam to the risk of a failed Weimar. In 1938, you probably would have been arguing that National Socialism was an expression of natural equilibrium for the entity composed of "Greater Germany".
The problem with your outcomes that you outline is the Fallacy of False Dilemma. You go from "two most likely" to "second possible", denying the third through "n"th possible outcomes. Indeed, with the historical examples of postwar Germany and Japan having democracy thrust upon them compared with postwar East Germany and China with the "stability" of dictatorship, your analysis ignores the most recent large scale examples of success.
The stable dictatorship model has been tried in the Middle East for a hundred years, and is an abject failure. Time to do something that actually works once in a while.