The policy failed because it's malignant and arrogant. It reverses the strong, but humble foreign policy practiced by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush and Clinton.
Ummm... those people were far, far, far from being of the same mind on foriegn policy. I have an a habit of overgeneralizing, but that's just laughable.
Look up some of the CIA's actions during the 50', 60's and 70's and then look at what you just said. If you could, I would tell you to look up "Track One" and "Track Two" you can, but you won't find much.
Reagan was listening to the exact same people (or at least the direct intellectual decedents) that you now deride as being terrible. Reagan gave to hearing to people like Kissinger. As for the issue of WMD... I refuse to accept that Saddam didn't have at least some, and there is, indeed, evidence that some existed. The Pentagon was not completely wrong. And at the risk of being laughed at I believe that there was a concerted effort inside the Federal Government, by groups unnamed (though not "unpatriotic liberals") to discredit Military Intelligence and derail the Bush Administrations efforts internationally... a well funded, well organized fifth column, not beholden to the the people and indifferent about the Constitution. Though I am sure this will come back to bite me in the ass (or blow my head off) later in life, I will paraphrase John McCain and say that if you want to look into the eyes of the United States' current failures internationally, you will see three letters...
A "C". An "I". And an "A".
As for the rest of what you say, there were strategic, historical and immediate reasons for the choice of Iraq.
As for the response to the current situation in Iraq and possible invasion of Iran... I love how you think the neocons are somehow more organized than America's real enemies, but I assure you they aren't. Even a quick and dispassionate glance at what various neocons are saying on these issues would show you that "their" opinion is actually all over the map.
And actually, many neocons have objected loudly to the way the war was carried out, and the total lack of real strategic planning on the side of the Bush Administration, particularly the "rush to Baghdad" which totally ignored that the objective of war is to destroy the enemies army, not to capture cities. They should have used Baghdad as a albatross for the Republican Guard to hold them down and destroy them. It would have cost more soldiers from the outset, but it would have given us a whole year to build up before the foriegn insurgents showed up. Many of "us" realized this at the time, but were largely ignored.
Moreover, the extend to which neocon influence has existed in the Bush Administration has been vastly exaggerated... neocons opposed many of Rumsfeld's policies, just as they opposed Cheney's dismantling of the armed forces when he was Sec. of Defense.
And, BTW... we had a coalition... a bigger one than the one that went into Iraq in 1991... sadly, it has since vanished, another product of Bush and his neglect of the State Dept with his appointment of Condi Rice... also not a neocon.
