What about Afghanistan?

From time to time I try to imagine what would have ensued if the president had sent an additional 135 thousand troops to Afghanistan, instead of miring them down in Iraq. No way that was going to happen, of course, because Afghanistan just isn't going to get as many column inches in the news as Iraq. Also, no oil.
Still, just imagine: perhaps the government of Afghanistan would extend beyond the suburbs of Kabul; maybe the Taliban would be out of business; al Quaeda would be unable to operate in the middle east; the opium fields wouldn't be burgeoning. Maybe Osama bin Laden would have been captured! There'd be less terrorism!
At a minimum, both Afghanistan and Iraq would be much quieter, and safer places.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein (apparently the only brutal thug dictator the President really cares about) would still possess the ability to launch weapons-of-mass-destruction-related-program-activities against us within as short a time as 45 minutes!
Meantime, the president continues to imagine a "free and democratic" Iraq. Sorry Mr. Bush. Not in the cards. There are three possibilities in that sorry state: a.) Continued U.S. military occupation (not politically palatable); b.) an Iraq unified by a dictator (Saddam lite?); or c.) a number of mini-Iraq states divided by ethnic/religious differences (fighting each other for oil/power/money).
As some others have pointed out (David Brooks, even), it might be that when we say democracy, middle-eastern people see something entirely different from what we think they see.
They see things like American warplanes dropping bombs, American soldiers torturing Iraqis, American companies milking Iraq for oil. Not a pretty sight.