Someone who knows a lot more about this stuff than I do weighs in:
The national strategy to place a democracy in Iraq has no bearing on military strategy right now. I don’t know if that was ever in the plans – certainly wasn’t when I was in on the planning. The current strategy on the ground is to establish a government, any government that can stand on its own long enough for us to get our finger off of it and run like hell. (I guess I look at it like teaching the neighbors kid how to ride a bike, doesn’t matter if it’s a nice kid or a bully, as soon as he starts going by himself, we’re out of there before he crashes on a major scale)). Although, running like hell simply means withdrawing to a few heavily fortified bases so we can project power at a later date.
I say this for a few reasons: 1) Saddam is going to be tried in an unwestern style court, and probably executed promptly after without much appeal. 2) Iraqi ministry of interior forces conduct interrogation of terrorists/collaborators in ways that even make me cringe – right in front of US intelligence personnel… And ministry of interior personnel are expanding along with secret police outfits. 3) We declined to create their constitution for them (Germany, Japan) knowing full well, the Iraqis may very well vote themselves a Shiite theocracy…quite a lot of griping by senior commanders about that one. 4) State Department constantly interfering with the war effort, doing things like putting Muqtada Al Sadr on a do-not-kill list, etc…
Anyway, I conclude that our “grand strategy” is simply to hold on long enough that secret police outfits, MOI intelligence agents and the IP/ING have enough of (an iron) grip on the population that we can withdraw. Government type is really irrelevant at this point.
This suggests, unsurprisingly, that yet another purported rationale for the Iraqi invasion and occupation is nothing more than political smoke and mirrors meant to entertain the unthinking masses. It also suggests that the administration knows perfectly well the absurdity of its own public position, and that bringing “democracy” to Iraq won’t make a bit of difference with regards to future acts of terror.
I’ve never understood how it made any sense to claim that the administration’s briar-patch strategy would make Americans safer when it is a voluntary decision for jihadists to engage American troops there. How does a base in Iraq prevent a cell leader in Syria Jordanian or Saudi jihadist to attack Cleveland?