Just a sideline: Unfortunately, the US being the only superpower, per se, in the world does have its obligations. Rawanda comes to mind: When does the situation escalate to such a level that someone has to do something? Over 800,000 dead later UN "peacekeepers" stood watching the melee with loaded rifles and surrounding nations watched as well.
Iraq? First and foremost from a military point of view, Iraq was a brilliant idea (though the sectarian issues were severely overlooked). The key to any military campaign is logistics (ask Rommel in Africa, Hitler and Napoleon in Russia,Hypolites in Persia, etc) and terrain, the key to keeping your own civilians safe is fighting a war outside of your own country (Machiavelli would be proud). Why Iraq and not Afghanistan? Supplies and terrain. We also had more intelligence on Iraq and direct access to oil for running the war effort (it was the oil but not the reason everyone in Hollywood thinks). What better way to reduce the chances of having them bring the war to the US than to have them focus their assets in Iraq? Unfortunately, the cultural issues were not assessed properly (the same occurred during WWII with the Japanese) and the Shias, who you think would be greatful to be able to practice their religion openly after forty plus years decided that killing each other to get back at the US would be a great marketing plan for their cause to end the great satans reign. Interestingly, if Radical Islam were a political group it would fall under the category of Fascism (I guess that's why the Grand Mufti backed Hitler during WWII).
Look at any powerful nation throughout history and you will see similar traits as you are seeing in the US (and I'm speaking in general), peacekeeping, aid and determining cultural norms. The intentions are good but they just don't work with human nature. . .


Never trust a Captain who calls his firstmate "Little Buddy."

The Howells