I agree in general. But if the neocons' idea was really about 'spreading democracy' in the Middle East they did a terrible job of it.
Rumsfeld was directly responsible for poor planning & execution of the whole Iraq campaign. He ignored the pre-existing Army plans of how to govern an occupied Iraq once the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown. He was silent when others in the W administration began torturing captives – something that directly endangered American soldiers. He ignored the inevitable & predictable insurgency/terrorist groups that appeared after Saddam Hussein was gone. He sent American soldiers into Iraq without armored vehicles capable of withstanding home-made land mines. Remember those improvised explosive devices, IEDs? And finally Rumsfeld, as well as Bush & D!ck, ignored any idea of planning an exit from a stabilized Iraq.
If their real goal was to defend the Saudis and their oil wealth, then it doesn't really matter what disaster happened in Iraq. But here's the kicker. By invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, Rumsfeld & all the others in the W admin, created a power vacuum in the Middle East, making it easy for Iran to step in.
I guess I agree with Trell and his take on RIP.
It was both all about oil and a foolhardy mission. As long as they imagined they were safeguarding the Saudi Arabian regime, they didn't care what happened in Iraq. Only they botched it.