[theapportioner]

Since this war is one of pre-emptive regime change, and since its purported benefit is to "free" the Iraqis, it's only reasonable that we should have delved more deeply into the possible nature and composition of the postwar government. After all, the "justness" of a war depends on the benefits versus the costs -- how are we to make this decision when the future that we envision for Iraq is completely blind to us? The administration should not have claimed that they are going to turn Iraq into a good ol' democracy without showing us how they intend on doing it.

Leaving it until later, and then letting whatever happen, can't change history -- the war will have already occurred, a regime changed. But after the fights are over, American sense of responsibility to that country may dissipate, to which I imagine people shrugging their shoulders.

It presupposes victory, but I don't think it would make us any cockier (Iraq may think otherwise, but they think otherwise regardless). And sure it should be flexible, and may completely change. I'm just saying that when you prescribe a medication to treat an illness, the potential consequences (and we can't predict them all, but we can try) need to be taken into account first.