dangerous place because it was torn apart by war and not really rebuilt. It was invaded by the US and a "coalition of the willing". Some of the people who were for the war in Iraq subscribed to the "flypaper theory". If we were fighting the "bad guys" in Iraq, we weren't dealing with them here. The problem is--why was it any better for Iraq to have the bad guys, and the war? Answer--of course it wasn't.
In the run-up to the war on Iraq, we were advised we would be greeted as liberators. As Pandora liberated all the world's ills and slammed the box lid shut on hope? The die was cast when the decision was made to go into Iraq, and I don't really think Ari Fleischer made an error when he referred to going into Iraq in 2002--once the Bush Administration had the authority to use force in Iraq, it was going to happen. There were many good arguments why we should not have gone. But they were shrugged off; the people in favor of the war didn't want to hear about sectarian divisions or ethnic strife or internecine enmity that went back longer than our country's history. The biggest argument against it--that the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda, just weren't true, were probably known, and also dismissed.
So there was an invasion, and we stayed many years--and for what? It didn't do anything for us, and it definitely didn't do anything for Iraq. Like the old nursery rhyme points out, all the king's horses and all the king's men can't unbreak an egg. Staying longer wouldn't have fixed the broader problem with Iraq--a country can't really be said to be stable if it needs to be backstopped by some other country to keep from going all to hell. Only Iraqis can do that for themselves, and if they don't see themselves as one Iraq, but as factions, we are out of luck. You can't bomb enmity out of people, or amity into them.
I am not sure why this is so hard to learn.