I believe that the real reason Bush is in Iraq,
is that the Washington Hawks, (wolfowitz, cheney, rumsfeld et al)
want to establish a US friendly state, and a democracy as an example for the rest of the middle east. The secondary reasons would be the convergence of rogue states, wmds, and terrorists willing to use them
ie. the danger to the US. & the west, followed by the fact that it still is a strategic part of the world and the world is dependent on oil - too risky to leave a nutcase in power. liberating the iraqi People is probably third on the list. Yet I still support the action,
the question is at what cost (which is key- because if there are huge civilian casualties - then it will be more difficult for the US)

this is a big gamble for the Bush administration, as the world had to be sold, on the reasons to go in, and the risk was a split with Europe and Russia (which after sept 11- actually moved closer to an alliance with the west- as they had similar interests in going after Islamic terrorist etc.)
Besides alienating Europe and much of the world, it certainly inflamed much of the Islamic world. (although many of the Arab govts, quietly back the US.) - a further reason would be to take away the
backing and payments Hussein made to Palestinian groups like Hamas etc.

It remains to be seen what happens afterwards in Iraq, certainly if the people come to see the US as liberators, and the awful truth of the Husseins regime come out it might take the wind out of the sails of many in the mideast-
on the other if their news coverage is mainly from al jazeera
then they might not know. (today aljazeera showed a burnt out US tank
but neglected to show the iraqi minister denying the uS is anywhere near baghdad while statues of saddam tumble all around)