Why is the US in Iraq?

The pentagon came out with a new report called "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq". It's first paragraph states:
"The goal of U.S. engagement in Iraq is a
united, stable, democratic, and secure
nation, where Iraqis have the institutions and
resources they need to govern themselves
and to provide security for their country."
Despite the lofty opening pronouncement the report goes on to categorize Codpiece's nightmarish catastrophe, although downplaying the magnitude. Almost all media outlets at least grudgingly accept the fact that Iraq is fast becoming a bloody killing zone where a million and a half of it's citizens have already fled the country and 100,000 more leave every month. Why is the reality of Iraq so different from the fuzzy stated mission?

Maybe Iraq today isn't just a problem that spiralled out of control by poor planning. Maybe all those mistakes and screwups after the invasion didn't just happen by chance. It's possible that there wasn't any "bad intelligence" that "misled" the administration in the first place. Maybe the Iraq we see today is precisely what our overlords had planned from the beginning.

Decisions were made right from the opening gun that ensured there were going to be massive problems. Infrastructure was obliterated and left to rot in disrepair. The US disbanded the Iraqi army and left them to organize the resistance. At least 250,000 tons of ordnance was deliberately left unguarded and was carried away by looters. Torture at places like Abu Ghraib wasn't just a few bad apples:
"Go past the executive summaries and press releases, however, and a careful reading of the reports reveals a different story. The devastating scandal of Abu Ghraib wasn't a failure of implementation, as Rice and other administration defenders have admitted. It was a direct--and predictable--consequence of a policy, hatched at the highest levels of the administration."
From the beginning the Bushistas activated a favored institution, familiar from years gone by and even implemented by the same criminals who formed them the first time in Central America - roving death squads. Add the assassinations, the false flag bombings, destruction of entire cities, shortages, and on and on. We have to realize that this consistent pattern of vicious criminality isn't just an accident - it was planned.

Corporate media isn't going to ever address this. All we'll see from them is effort to legitimize the crime and distract us with missing hikers and fallen beauty pageant winners. When they do cover the Iraqi shitheap it's done in a way to narrow the parameters of discussion. A favorite tactic going back to Vietnam. Instead of asking the obvious big picture questions they'll have a poll like this one from ABC:



or this from CBS:



Whatever the hell succeed means at this point.

If we're going to believe that our miserable quagmire was planned we have to put ourselves in the fascists' shoes and determine what we would have done differently. That's pretty easy - leaving the infrastructure alone then improving it, giving far more initial effort to integrate the various political and religious entities, securing the borders and those ammo dumps, observing strict oversight on contractors, delivering massive aid to the people. Of course this is assuming we had any goddamn right to do what we did in the first place.

But the biggest question of all is - why did the US invade Iraq? After all, the stated reasons were all huge lies, every one of them.
With an almost four year track record to observe I think the answer is obvious. The complete and utter disintegration of a once proud and prosperous Arab neighbor of Israel. The theft of natural resources and the theft of our tax money. Endless civil strife to ensure destruction. Permanent presence in the heart of those resources to extend the Empire's reach.
When you think about results like that, maybe Codpiece really did believe he did a good job back then.