"let us play your silly little game...

In this alternate universe...

1) We would have hundreds of thousands of more troops available to use as leverage against serious threats like Iran and North Korea..."

I love silly games. Hmm. The shortage of troops is not a constraining factor in regards to Iran or N Korea. Or said differently, putting more US troops in S Korea might signal to N Korea a hostile intent- but that doesn't help in any way that I can see. All I see it does is allow N Korea leaders to sidetrack the 6 party talks. As far as Iran. Currently the US has 132,000 US troops in Iraq. These troops are battle harden and probably the most lethal force ever placed on this planet. And they have a tremendous capablity to surge to say 1/2 million troops [which also mostly battle harden] within a very short time. That about as serious of a threat in term of combat forces that Iran has faced or may ever face. The idea that US forces are "bogged down" in Iraq from a miltary prospective is just plain silly. If Iran had the same kind of miltary savvy as say most european powers, they would be alarmed by the miltary potential of an American size and strength army near it's border [but on other hand, they can fairly confident that America won't simply start war unless Iran provokes it. Or look at this way, how alarmed would you have been if Soviets had 130,000 man army stationed in Mexico- oh and say Soviet carrier battle group in Gulf of Mexico and one off coast of California. And say add to mix that America has at most 10 nukes and Soviets have 10,000 nukes]

"2) We would still have the post 9-11 goodwill and willing support of our allies."
How much goodwill do Russians have from terrorist attack in Beslan? It simply doesn't work that way. Besides if you want Eurpean goodwill to last more than a couple weeks, the US would need to sign Kyoto- and follow it- and not like how the current signers are only pretending they doing something.

"3) We could present intelligence to the world to support any military action we decided was needed without being laughed off..."

I don't think world is laughing regarding Iran's nukes.

"4) We would have hundreds of billions to spend hunting terrorists and and incresing security."

Wishful thinking

"5) 2300+ more US soldiers would not have died in Iraq"

That is of course true. But US miltary forces wouldn't be as trained nor as equipped.

"6) We would not have the deaths of 30,000+ Iraqis on our hands."

Well, there was a cost of continued sanctions [in terms of costing lives]. There was also a cost to lifting sanctions [in terms of Saddam being a miltary threat- potentially costing lives].

We also had some hard to measure affect in liberating Lebanon. Our action has allowed Iraq to have a free press. Northern Iraq has more security. Southern Iraq isn't under Saddam exessively oppressive rule. Swamp arabs are no longer being systematically exterimated and area is being allowed to turn to natural habitat. On average Iraqis are getting paid more. And of course, most importantly Iraqis now have the ability to elect their leaders and determine their future.