"Was the Bush administration clear in what it intended to achieve by invading Iraq?"
Remove Saddam from power.
Also try keep Iraq intact. And try to establish a democracy.

"A different set of war goals has emerged over the past year. We are now in Iraq, according to various administration pronouncements, to: bring about self-government and create conditions for economic growth and development; build a unified Iraq that does not pose a threat to international peace; leave behind us a constitution and parliament; help build a disarmed, law-abiding Iraq that is whole, free, at peace with itself and its neighbors, and that no longer supports or harbors terror; and to help Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and future. These goals are worth revisiting in light of current conditions in Iraq."
Same goals. I see no reason to change goals.

"So how does the Bush administration intend to accomplish its postwar goals? Sloganeering -- "stay the course," "don't cut and run" -- won't do the trick. How are the administration's goals going to be achieved when some U.S.-created Iraqi national police and civil defense units seem unwilling to fight and die defending their country against armed insurgents? Those aren't Americans cutting and running and abandoning their posts in Iraqi government buildings and police stations, they're Iraqis. Why should it fall to the U.S. Central Command to put down the unrest in Baghdad and Fallujah while Iraqi police are turning over their weapons, vehicles and offices to the insurgents? "Stay the course." As Iraqis abandon the fray? "

Iraqi security is still not adequately trained or equiped. If Iraqi security was fully trained and equiped, we wouldn't be waiting until July 1 to transfer power, nor be keeping our forces in Iraq after transfer. It takes time to properly build security forces, and takes longer to get them well trained. We (American public) shouldn't have to pay to fully equip their security forces- Iraqis will have to decide for themselves how well they want to equip their security.

"U.S. forces, at some cost, can put down the insurgency and stabilize the country. But if ever there was a moment for the president to explain how he expects to build a law-abiding Iraq that is whole, free and at peace with itself -- and how Americans will know when that goal has been reached -- it's now."

No, the better time would after the power is transferred, and then the Iraqi leadership is free to make decisions as a sovereign power. At present it is supposed that we will stay the course for several years, but it's actually the govt of Iraq which will have final say in this regard. In other words we will no longer be legally an occupational power in Iraq- we will be there to assist the Iraqi govt with their security. For instance, when we sent miltary forces into Saudi Arabia to defend and later as launching point to push Saddam out of Kuwait, we of course, were not occupying Saudi Arabia- we were assisting SA with their security and later SA was helping us by being a staging area to attack Iraqi forces, and after this SA allowed us to use their air bases to maintain the Southern No Fly Zone.
We will need to have a elected govt of Iraq in place before we might have any permanent security agreements, but the transititional govt could make temporary arrangements.

"Powell said. They "would melt into their sanctuaries . . . refit, regroup, and come out to fight again," he said. Sound familiar?"

No. Iraqi insurgents are not retreating into Syria or Iran. If they did, we would follow them- unless Syria or Iran would agree to prevent these forces from using their countries as staging areas. In other words, as one terrorist said "there are no mountains".

"We went into Iraq knowing next to nothing about the Arab world, its culture, customs or the role of Islam in the lives of people. Instead, for information we relied on a handful of self-serving Iraqi exiles and Arab intellectuals skilled in handling and indulging Western conceit and arrogance. It was tantamount to foreigners' seeking out elite black conservatives and think-tank experts to explain the thoughts and ways of inner-city folks. "

Actually we were already in the Kurd area on the ground for a decade.
And of course we were in Kuwait, and SA, and other arab countries, not to mention the Turks are key member of NATO. We have strong political and diplomacy ties with many of these countries for decades- US played a major and sole role in providing SA with training and knowledge base necessary to run a modern govt- establishing a banking system, administrative training, etc. And finally, we have been trying to resolve Israel/Palestinian conflict for decades- you won't find shortage of books or other journalists work on this topic.