Well, there is a problem here.
America has a tradition, a reputation, of being the altruistic good guy.
For example, America supported western Europe long past that time western Europe had recovered, meaning we were paying for things they didn't have to, and since they didn't have to, those countries adopted all these over-generous social services programs, giving us the spoiled brat eurotwits of today.
It's unfortunate, but what can one do?
My own attitude about the liberation of Iraq has been stated many times; when the genocidal homocidal Saddam Hussein was captured and then hanged, "mission accomplished."
I know I'm in a minority here, but to me, America's destiny is to free the world of oppressors and thugs, after which the newly liberated are to make their own choices.
Given our experiences with the ungrateful Europeans, I'm not fond of this "rebuilding" stuff; just remove the cancer by any means possible, and then let the body heal on its own, naturally.
If I had had my way, we would have been out of Iraq the morning after Saddam Hussein was hanged, as the mission was accomplished, and gone onto other places to free the world, carrying out John Kennedy's words, ".....to bear any burden, pay any price....." so that others may enjoy the blessings of freedom and liberty.
Of course, I didn't have my way; we're stuck with being noble and altruistic.
The blunt fact--and here comes another one of my minority opinions--is that if America feels compelled to "rebuild" Iraq after its considerable cultural, political, religious, financial destruction by Saddam Hussein, then when we went in, we should have gone in with the intention of making Iraq a colony, a protectorate, a commonwealth, or even the 51st state, all of us here benefiting from it.
I wouldn't have minded that, but that's just me.
Of course there would have been a worldwide uproar, but Hell, do we want long-term solutions or not?