I doubt if states, or state-like groups, ever act altruistically, because the people who come to have power within them can't achieve that power by acting altruistically, but only through aggressive self- and team interest. There is no reason for them to suddenly change their habits when they succeed in achieving dominant power; quite the contrary. Therefore, the "morality of intervention" is not ephemeral; it never could possibly have existed in the first place. Interventions occur because intervening rulers see some material interest to be defended or advanced through the intervention, not because they moralize. Moralizers drive busses and sweep floors.
And so, whether Iraq were rebuilt following destruction and conquest by the U.S. government would depend on whether the U.S. government saw an interest in doing so, as it saw an interest in rebuilding Germany after World War II: as a rampart or platform from which to conduct further war. As there is a good possibility that they also wish to destroy and conquer Iran, or at least cow its leadership, the prospects are hopeful, for a certain very thin meaning of _hope_. One must doubt that the policy theorists of the ruling class have failed to think this simple syllogism through.
Well-meaning humanitarian interventionists are not to blame for this situation, except insofar as they contribute to the obfuscations and delusions which protect the actual political mechanics involved -- and probably, rulers who felt the need of such obfuscations could easily purchase them if they were not volunteered. Therefore, I do not agree with the notion of a "dubious legacy" except in our little aviary of Left discourse, where in its turnings it has caught up Hitchens and his kind and caused them to flap off to join other flocks. Is this necessarily such a bad thing?
-- Gordon