I'm sorry but the attempt has been made. WMD was found. You question it. The Duelfer Report lays bare the programs lying dormant, information taken in debriefings of some of the highest officials in the Baath gov't substantiated by countless findings in what can only be characterized as the single most comprehesive study of Saddam's byzantine WMD and nat'l security strategy. It was, in short, damning- but not to you. You even call to question the use of chemical agents against the Iranians and at Halabja.
A long history of realized ambitions of irridentistism has been stopped and reversed- but only by war. A demonstrated use of WMD and the possession of programs designed to perpetuate that threat have been ELIMINATED as a foreseeable consequence of being Iraq's neighbor or citizen.
A fouled-up PHASE IV occupation by the Americans only illustrates the witches brew of forces opposed to a democratic and free Iraq, however bungled our initial efforts to combat them. THEY bear the burden of guilt for the post-war Iraqi violence. Not America. Even still the cost is bearable.
But not to you. LANCET says otherwise. Hopefully that was an argument buried elsewhere, or does that need yet another wash?
You raise interesting questions about the future. That's all that matters at this point. For the most part, though, your discussion shall be left for the historians to ponder. Until, however, they discover something heretofore unknown, they've nothing substantively different to offer from the assessment of most here.
Neither do you, Herodotus. I hope that this helps to illuminate our disdain for these issues. Given your eloquence and obvious intelligence, it'd be neat if you instead looked ahead. O'Hanlon's notion of stabilized security is clearly a far cry from unbridled cries of "Let freedom fill the air". Still, it's the best we've got short of planned partition or civil war. If achieved, then it will be as it should for the near-term- an uneasy peace as political coalitions form, elections are held (yet again), institutions are raised, and life goes on.
The truth is that Iraq deserves a civil war to self-identify. It's a rational outcome for many nations, in my view. I question Iraq's legitimacy as a nation. Without reconciliation by all factions it can't really exist other than as a cheap facade. That won't last. So liberty AND sovereignty in many cases need to be earned in blood by my view.
HOWEVER, just maybe radical surgery can be avoided by a reconciled and unified emerging Iraqi expression of parliamentary democracy. That'd be terribly cool and not totally out of the question. It's the only good bet too, IMV.
So back the best bet to a better world and support the success of the Iraqi gov't as it continues to evolve as only a new democracy can-in fits and starts.
Look not backward, but firmly to the future with eyes clear and powder dry.
Most of us already are doing so.