"1.) What was the (real) rationale for the invasion of Iraq? Remove Saddam, remove WMD, establish democracy, kill Islamic terrorists, make an example of Iraq, or all of the above?"
Saddam, WMD, democracy were all objectives worth consideration. "...kill Islamic terrorists..." in Iraq is a simple requirement of establishing local security for the Iraqis. This poll-thread so far has largely said that terrorists weren't a viable pre-invasion issue. Their post-invasion presence may well be a product of our bungled Phase IV implementation. Their current presence is an undeniable though diminishing fact that is best addressed kinetically.
TWO examples of Iraq. Consequences of "bad, bad Iraq" to paraphrase nanheyangrouchuan fav anti-PRC rant and the shining beacon of new Iraq. First one was immediately understood by Gaddafi. The second needs some polishing. Objectives though, if unstated. So all excepting salafi-wahabbist A.Q. type terrorists. Ansar-al-Islam doesn't really
quite work. I don't really know how to describe that relationship w/ Iraq. Tenuous, perhaps.
2.) If the answer is all of the above or establish democracy, why has democracy promotion been given short shrift in Iraq...
Not at all. Parliamentary elections and constitutional referendums in an arab state are too unusual to casually dismiss as EXPECTED order of business. Hardly short shrift that Iraq has had a government hold office...
"...no quick handover of power..."
Allawi took the interim P.M. position sometime in 2004. Jaffari. al-Maliki in 2006. True power is derived from competent institutions. There were none under Saddam. Perhaps that might be different now. That's TBD.
"...no bottom-up promotion of democratic institutions..."
Don't be so limp-wristed. Those seven words are values. Communication of these values is occurring. The "al-Anbar Awakening" is a reflection of this grass-roots re-emergence. But it's not as tame as forced school-bussing in Boston, that's for sure. Still, there's been considerable movement in the villages, towns, districts, and provinces which you've chosen to ignore I suspect.
Finally, one-third of the nation was COMPLETELY prepared to "bottom-up" from the get-go. Kurdistan. Most Kurds would suggest that-
"...no protection of minority rights"
Imperfect. Yazidis suffered badly recently. Kurds have fared better.
"...no (real) establishment of security..."
That's changing quickly or will you not acknowledge that?
"...no power-sharing deals...",
I'd call the presence of an Iraqi parliament and constitution, by themselves, overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There's been much more since.
"...and no clear break from the Islamic religious tradition that popular sovereignty only comes from God?
Whatever. "no" is absolute. That you use absolute phrasing repeatedly suggests you've departed from considered discussion of issues based on relevant and current conditions. I sense within some articles of faith to which you cling in the face of contrary observations.
3.)
"What does (strategic) victory look like in Iraq?"
Something closer to Turkey than Saudi Arabia for starters. I like our chances there. Especially if it includes an Incirlik or two.
4.)
If as you say it will take a long, long time for any of America's goals to be realized in the region (save the removal of Saddam)...
No. I didn't say that-least of all "any". Not by a country mile. Many have already been realized. No WMD. Neighbors safe from invasion. Kurds and shias safe. No baath party. Far more than you mentioned that are immediate benefits to the neighborhood.
"how has the administration prepared the American public, who are already weary of war, for this likelihood?"
Rhetorical. You've already answered this for yourself. Prove weariness and beware of polls.
5.) If we, America, fall short of strategic victory (however so defined) what would happen in a worse-case scenario to America, and Iraq, that hasn't already occurred?
If you can't imagine worse than the present then you've not studied history at all. Note the absolutism of that comment by me.
6.)
How does an American presence there absolutely prevent any one of the worse-case scenarios from happening?
YOUR worse-case scenarios may not be the only imaginable. Our presence guarantees nothing. I think it's clear that our departure guarantees a highly unstable Iraq vulnerable to external and internal forces which it is only now averting with some success.
Conversely, if America were to remove troops would any of these worse-case scenarios really befall us or Iraq? If so, why?
Too many questions now and I know you too well, Herodotus. You're cherry-picking the edges to avoid an open declaration of your views for which you might be pummeled.
Take the big step and give us the Herodotus Manifesto of American Adventurism.
No sarcasm is intended... if they seem too partisan or "agenda-driven", but I get tired of the boilerplate answers ... and would like some serious critical thinking on these issues.
You need to practice some "boilerplate assumptions" avoidance.
"I myself dabbled in pacifism at one time; not during 'Nam of course."
Walter- My bowling partner. Good man. He can get you a toe in three hours.