There seems to be an inherent contradiction in his talk. He seems to say that invading these places is wrong, yet he wants to insure these occupations are successful. Talks of improving nation building capabilites shouldn't occult terrible policy decisions that lead to attacking a country. Moreover, despite the so-called blunders of the Bush administration, I am not sure that occupying Iraq could have turned out any better than it did considering the profound ethnic/religous divisions and the probable ultimate goal of occupation. Besides several decades of anti-guerilla warfare, I am not sure there is an alternative way to impose one's will on an occupied nation of significant size and even then it is likely to become a failed state (aka the Philippines).