This is not a good primer on "liberation" as you call it DougR.

This was a quick, cheap, sleazy war by any standard, because there was never any substantial military or civilian opposition to stop the Anglo American invasion. Iraq's military was decimated in the first Gulf War, and the civilian population, with a few exceptions, didn't require immediate pacification because so many had been terrorized by their leaders for decades. Choosing to "go to war" (this was no war, it was a fait accompli) against third world despots with no military to speak of, merely lulls Americans into the safe and cozy belief that this is what war really is. It isn't. Deposing a despotic regime militarily in three weeks time doesn't qualify as true liberation. I say, let's see what the occupation of Iraq by our military generals brings.

I share Wolfgang's concern for what the US does in peace time, as that is when the US' imperial "strategic self-interests" get furthered around the globe at the expense of the nations who have our "self-interests" under their sand, growing in their rainforests, etc etc.

And should the current fascist regime in Washington decide that Iraq was such a cakewalk, that while we are there we might as well take Iran and Syria too, well...then we'll be seeing the classic flaw of all imperialists--over reaching.