"The idea to invade Iraq was a good one. It would drive a wooden stake deep into the heart of the Islamofascist world, and it would have created a pro-American, pro-democracy state there in a nation that was already highly secularized and inclined to go that way anyway. We would have a military base on the border of almost every middle eastern nation and a viable, benign alternative to radical Islam available for everyone to see and envy."

We didn't nor do we want a pro-american state nor is it desirable to have "a military base on the border of almost every middle eastern nation ".
Break it down: Is Saudi Arabia a "pro-American" state? Christ, the dems seem to want to attack Saudi Arabia at various times. And in general not much is said about Saudi Arabia which gives the idea that it is considered a pro-american state. BUT as an actual fact, Saudi Arabia was and is a US ally- that doesn't mean we agree with the way that country is being run. But it is a fairly dependable ally that will work with the US and other countries to solve problems and in particular solve regional problems and matters that could involve muslims in particular. Egypt is similar but probably not as reliable as a US ally.

Now as it happens, we did actually create a "pro-American" state in the middle east, but we refuse to recognize it as a state, and of course I'm referring to the Kurds of Iraq- the idea that they could see it as desirable to be the 51 state of the US, to me, is one indication that's it is Pro-American. But as an ally I don't know if we can trust the Kurds too much [because they want independence and freedom- and this could cause us a huge amount of trouble].
So I would say what we really want is countries in the middle east that we work with us on various issues. And more importantly we want countries in the middle east that will be prosperous and adding significant value to the world in general.
As far as miltary bases [permanent bases]. We don't need them. What is far better is developing miltary capability of various countries in which US forces can function in joint operations. This is *in progress* and it's only somewhat seen in regards to NATO forces. Having permanent US bases in foriegn countries is expensive and in terms of adding to global security it is not effective solution for a modern world.

"The people were fed up with Saddam's brutality and even his neighbors would have welcomed his downfall. Iran would find itself isolated from the rest of the middle east and surrounded by US troops, and Iraqi oil would have financed the whole operation and lessened American dependence on other foreign crude producers. And Iraq could put up no meaningful military resistance."

I don't think anyone thought it would "financed the whole operation". I don't know anyone who thought Iraq would paid the US money to pay for the cost of US troops.

BUT Iraq now has somewhere around 300,000 Iraqi security forces and other than cost of US personnel used to train them, we aren't paying for them.
Now, I think that it *was* thought possible that by this point in time less US forces would be needed in Iraq [therefore costing the US less money] so you could say that aspect was "unexpected" or more correctly not what was hoped for.

"The only problem was that civilized, peaceful nations do not invade their enemies, it is an unforgiveable sin and deserves international condemnation."

This is nonsense. We invaded france and Italy in WWII. Kuwait nor Iraq were at war with the US. Clinton invaded Haiti. The list goes on and on: Korea, Congo, Timor, etc.

"However, we had a great excuse, Weapons of Mass Destruction and an Al-Quaeda connection. If I had been President, and IF AND ONLY IF I was convinced of these two preliminary conditions, I would have taken the chance."

It wasn't merely because of WMD, it's because WMD was a part of a cease fire agreement that Saddam had refused to comply with. Which effectively re-activated Gulf war I and thereby as a result, he got Gulf war II.

"Here was an opportunity to deflate the entire Jihadist and terrorist movement in one quick surgical procedure. The strategy promised great returns, but also had great risks. It was worth taking the chance. If it had succeeded, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would have gone down in history as geniuses."

There was never a "quick surgical procedure" to defeat the Jihadists. But Iraq could provide an arena to fight the terrorists. And if you had to choose between fighting these guys in Afghanstan or in Iraq, Iraq would be a better place to fight them. As a famous but now dead Terrorist said, "No mountains". Which isn't really true, there are mountain/hills but the Kurds are there and they aren't particularly fond of the terrorists.