Iraq is no more about spreading Democracy than Vietnam was.
Iraq is no more about oil than Vietnam was. And it's not about stopping the spread of communism as the domino theory held, even though Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a socialist state in the sense that land and production facilities were not privately owned. America isn't waging war on Iraq because the central authority controlled all the physical assets in the land. Indeed, one of the main reasons the drafting of the new constitution is being held up is because the US is insisting on continued central control of the land and natural resources which the Kurds and the Shiites and the Sunis want to claim for themselves.
But, it's not just the disinclination to have the country's resources controlled by the several districts or governorates (as they're called in Iraq) which is a sure sign that Democracy is not a high priority. The US support for the imposition of Sharia law, which discriminates most stringently against women, is yet another clue that the goals of this military adventure aren't just being missed, but weren't there from the start--just like in Vietnam.
So what's the point? Why is the US attacking a 90 pound weakling, yet again? (Granted that Iraq did not start out as an insignificant entity like pre-war Vietnam, but it sure was after Gulf I, the embargo and being bombed for almost a dozen years). The answer, I would offer is that it isn't. Yes, a weakling is being pounded to smitherenes, but it isn't happening again. When you look at the strategic location of the two nations, on either side of the Indian Ocean basin, it's pretty obvious that the effort to establish a permanent base of operations for the US military in the region never actually stopped.
The instigators of the aggression against Iraq are the same as the architects of the misadventure in Vietnam and the real purpose remains the same--to contain the giant that is China by demonstrating, in a surrogate engagement, the might of the American military and the US determination that it will not be matched. In other words, Vietnam and now Iraq were attacked to serve as an example and send a message to China, at the same time that the US attempted to satisfy its own territorial ambitions--not to govern, but to stay as long as it wants.
Considering that targeting unimportant weak individuals in order to send a message to those that are strong is the essential ingredient of terrorism, it could reasonably be argued that the US is terrorist number one. But, never mind. What's really important from the American perspective is that it has been necessary to deceive the great majority of its people because an empire is the last thing they want the US to be. The explanation, that Vietnam was merely an exercise in securing and maintaining military bases which would help keep China in check, would have been unacceptable then and is unacceptable now. Which is why it's not been revealed and why George W. Bush can't answer Cindy Sheehan's question.
Indeed, this explanation, which would have been unacceptable in 1963 when our anxiety about communism in China was still high, is even more unacceptable now that China has demonstrated that a communist or socialist system of property ownership is not inconsistent with the capitalist principles of profit and investment. Which is why there's a renewed emphasis on democracy and human rights which, unfortunately, are being denied by events on the ground.
Having born witness for decades to repressive regimes and dictatorial leaders which tried to pass off a rubber-stamp electorate as democratic, the American public is no longer fooled. They can tell when a government is responsive to the will of the people by watching it replaced when it's not. They can tell when all citizens enjoy their human and civil rights when they can see and hear them expressing what they expect from their civil servants, and they can see them going about their business without fear of repression or aggression. None of which is anywhere near being achieved in Iraq.
Of course, if Iraq is merely the continuation of Vietnam, one has to wonder if that's what John Kerry meant when he said "it's the wrong war, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time." If so, then why didn't he say so? Is it because he discovered the real reason for Vietnam too late and, if he had known it earlier, wouldn't have opposed it as he did? But if that's so, why did he state during the campaign that the US should have no permanent bases in Iraq--a position that's obviously the basis for his advice (in a speech on June 28, 2005) to George W. Bush that he should publicly abjure any interest in permanent bases?
Is the answer that this is a very dangerous position to take? Is it because other leaders who have taken a similar position are no longer with us? John F. Kennedy, for example? We all know that JFK made a secret deal with Russia that in exchange for the removal of their missiles from Cuba, the US promised to dismantle some military assets in Turkey. Is it possible that JFK made further commitments to withdraw the (600 - 1000) "advisers," that were already in place in Vietnam when he came into office, and that this position proved even more unacceptable than his having bested Richard Nixon in the election--the same Richard Nixon who was Vice President when the first American advisers were secretly dispatched to Vietnam. (1)
Yes, I know. Nixon went to China. Nixon promised to end the war. Perhaps the final agreement that made the final withdrawal possible was a commitment from China that it would not seek to challenge the territorial integrity of Vietnam, if the US got out. What I don't know and will probably have to look up is how soon another potential location for our permanent bases was identified.
In any event, Vietnam is now Iraq.
(1)http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/06/papers_reveal_jfk_efforts_on_vietnam/