And an influential US Army War College paper was reasonable:
"If the war is rapid with few civilian casualties, the occupation
will probably be characterized by an initial honeymoon period
during which the United States will reap the benefits of ridding
the population of a brutal dictator. Nevertheless, most Iraqis
and most other Arabs will probably assume that the United States
intervened in Iraq for its own reasons and not to liberate the
population. Long-term gratitude is unlikely and suspicion of U.S.
motives will increase as the occupation continues. A force
initially viewed as liberators can rapidly be relegated to the
status of invaders should an unwelcome occupation continue for a
prolonged time. Occupation problems may be especially acute if the
United States must implement the bulk of the occupation itself
rather than turn these duties over to a postwar international
force. Regionally, the occupation will be viewed with great
skepticism, which may only be overcome by the population's rapid
progress toward a secure and prosperous way of life."
<http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=182>
Why did the Bush administration screw up? The most convincing explanation I've personally heard is that it's organizational problems -- "failure of leadership," as liberals say. Preferring yes-men over competence, and so forth. (But this explanation could be wrong.)
It's not like the Bush administration is completely all-around incompetent. They pull off difficult victories against Dems and gave many gifts to the wealthy. Bush is still around.
Not to single out the right, I just started reading these (friendly) critiques of leftist organizations... <http://www.zmag.org/WITBU/witbuTOC.html>
Or for those who prefer video... <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3622753371052484817>
Tayssir