@Teresita,
With Iraq we had to stay around after. First to clean up the mess and create a functioning civil society and second to have a strategic base next to Iran, Syria, Turkey and The Magic Kingdom. We had to stay there for the second reason as long as Iran is a threat. My hope would have been that faster action on Syria would have increased our strategic depth and given us more flexibilty. Faster action on Iran would have allowed us to get out and, along with a host of domestic policies we need to work on, given us more options for energy. That would deflate the influence of the Saudis and the Russians. Being proactive would be better than being reactive. We needed to do the first part ourselves in rebuilding Iraq because there is no one else available to do the job. The Iranians would be only to happy to but they are the problem. The Turks and the Brits can’t do it.

In Korea the problem is different. We can eliminate the NORK regime and withdraw leaving the ROKs to digest their cousins. The prospect of a smaller American footprint in the region should please the Chinese. Pyongyang has become an embarrasing liability for them.