The Year of Iraq. You really didn't think I would keep my opinions to myself, did you? After all, I know just as much as the talking heads on every news outlet in creation. And since this blog is all about me, I get to spout here. Feel free to skip to another item if you're on a spout-free diet.

Where we went right. (We, of course, meaning the United States.) We toppled a murderous dictator and killed his sociopathic sons, thus ending his dynastic ambitions. We formed and led a coalition of some 60 nations in order to do this. We are rebuilding the infrastructure left to rot for the last decade or more. We are training the Iraqi people in the fundamentals of democracy and in how to defend themselves against the inevitable day when the coalition forces go home.

We refused to let the United Nations' unwillingness to enforce its own resolutions hamstring our actions. We refused to let foreign policy be dictated by those whose motives for opposing action, it was later revealed, were tainted by financial scandal involving Iraq. And we reaped several benefits in the region: the voluntary elimination of Libya's nuclear program; Syria's huge reluctance to get itself involved in Iraq; increasing protests within Iran against its mullah-cracy.

Where we went wrong. Immediately after 9/11, top heads of the CIA and FBI should have been sacked for their mismanagement of intelligence leading up to the attacks, and for their fatal territorial battles over gathering and sharing intelligence. Also immediately after 9/11, instead of creating a dangerous Patriot Act grab-bag of civil rights reductions, the Vietnam-era laws forbidding intelligence sharing between CIA and FBI should have been repealed.

Although the intelligence used to justify invading Iraq was agreed to by not only the USA but the UK, France, Germany, Israel, and the UN (just to name a few), once it was discovered that the intelligence was not highly accurate an explanation (not an excuse) should have been given to the American people, and to the world. It wasn't, and that decision will come back to haunt us in the future.

Regime change in Iraq was always stated as the goal of this invasion. However, there seemed to be no base plan for achieving a change from dictatorship to democracy, nor was there any sort of best guess on the amount of time or money this would take. Bad planning on the part of the executive branch will inevitably lead to cost increases that simply should have been avoidable.

Congress doesn't get let off the hook, either. Several authorizing resolutions regarding the use of force in Iraq should not have been followed by the wrangling over funding that use or the ways in which that funding was to be used. It is particularly odious to see leaders in the opposition party (as well as members of the ruling party) vote to allow force yet vote against funding -- sending the message that all the American leadership is prepared to do is make threats without teeth.

And the final analysis is that although the wrong reasons for action were stressed in making the case to the public, the outcome was a good one. The US and its coalition partners are managing to construct hope in Iraq, and by extension throughout the Middle East. And yes, it's not perfect. What thing made by the hands of man is? It's better than hoped for and less than ideal. The initial stages were done more rapidly and with less loss of life than expected.

And the future? As a wise and dear friend used to say, "My name's not Clara Voyant and I don't have crystal balls."