Wayne,
There all good points. I'll try and adress them.

An important consideration here is the view taken as to the means by which Iraq succeeds. By this I mean how is Iraqi success at rebuilding itself viewed. Is the success understood to have occurred despite US involvement or because of US involvement? If the former, I think Iraq earns more respect in the region. If the later, then Iraq likely is viewed as little more than an American lackey. I doubt the nations of world will like us better because we helped Iraq rise from the ashes that many view us as having put it into.
I'm not sure "liking us" is what matters. I think "respecting us", and having transparency in terms of how we approach both foreign policy investments and war is what matters. If Iraq sits back and lets somebody do all the work for them, that would be viewed differently then say if Iraq continued to do what it could, and as it could do more it did so until a point where it assumed full responsibility. Its in both their interests and ours for them to recover as quickly as possible. I think the issue of being viewed as an American lackey comes into play based on who is doing the labeleing and why, and whether or not Iraq has the fortitude and latitude to stand on its on. My estimate is they will both because they are not afraid to act in their interests, acknowledge but reject our advice and becuase they have the resources to do so over time.

I am more concerned about the downside of Iraq appearing as a regional power. Seems to me we've already seen the kind of conflict that can arise when a couple of ME nations vie to be the regional hegemons (Iran v. Irag for 10 years or so in the 1980s, for example and of course there was that little event between Iraq and Kuwait that provoked DS/DS--could also look at more ancient history of the region).
It is a risk. Of course many view U.S. power as a risk. Nigeria is a regional hegemon is W. Africa. China and India play increasingly important roles in their regions. States with more resources, drive and energy may become more influential then their neighbors. The issue is how they use their influence, i.e. do their actions engender stability or instability, do their actions match their narrative? How Iraq integrates into the broader ME is something of an open question - however its recent experiences will shape some of that. Its one of the reasons why our involvment remains a requirment in this moment - our assistance in shaping their institutions matters. Did you know we've assisted them in building in an IG like function in MoD and IGFC? I both know the advisors who assited them in building it and understanding its value as well as having experienced its value first hand (another thread for sure - but it worked in helping them get some accountability and oversight into the MoD). I bring it up because we are assisting them in builidng in accountability and oversight into their instituitions - accountability and oversight is key to sustainability.

Do we want Iraq to go it alone or is it in our intrests to assist them in integrating into the regional framework? Would we want them put in a position where their best alternative was to turn to Iran for support because they could not sustain their security yet? Somebody is going to make use of Iraq's resources - should it be a responsible government of Iraq, or a neighbor who opposes our vital interests openly? The decisions we and the broader regional and international communities' make now will help set the tune on how Iraq relates to the rest of the world in the future.

I seem to remember that Iraq once provided a haven for many Palestinians who were unabe to find meaningful employment in Israel/occupied territories--sort of a gastarbeiter presence similar to Turks in W. Germany in the 70s and 80s. But this is another double edged sword not unlike the illegal alien workforce that is doing America's yardwork (among other "menial" tasks).
There are at least two cosndierations here. One is a political willingness to do something - a choice. This choice is based on political willingess reflected in its domestic and foreign policies which are shaped by how it sees its interests best preserved and advanced. What are the advantages and risks with adopting policies - not only with regard to how it relates to others, but the danger to its own citizens as potentially destabilizing influences are encouraged, allowed or illegally make their way in.

The second part is the states ability to secure its borders and points of entry, and respond to destabilizing influences within. A security sector that integrates border and domestic security with its intelligence sector for the purpose of protecting its legitimate citizens is both part of a state's obligation to its population and the means to secure its sovereignty. It allows it to regulate and tax trade, preserve order, etc.. The capability to do so does not mean it must keep everyone out, but without the capability it could not do so if it chose to.

Like you brought up both of these are issues we contend with in our own domestic and foreign policy debates - as does almost every other state that has more to offer the person or groups leaving one place for another.

I think your concerns are legitmate in that they should shape how we view our involvment with regard to our other policy goals and how we conduct our relations with Iraq's neighbors. However, I still think our own foreing policy goals are better preserved and advanced by assiting Iraq in its recovery and integrating it into the region. I think key to this is Iraq's achieving sustainable secuirty.

Best, Rob