Fair enough if you think our invasion of Iraq has made the world and the ME a better and safer place but I am going to have to strongly disagree.
I don't, but I don't think it's so simple as to say that "not invading" is the end of the story (either in policy or in parliamentary politics). I disagree with those who speculate that an Al Gore administration would have come to reproduce Bush's path into Iraq, but I do believe that every year that passed for the "unfriendly" regional dictators without generalized unrest and conflict (e.g. Arab-Spring type unrest), impetus within the US executive would have increased to undertake military solutions to perceived problems. Again, this doesn't mean that any particular military action is a good idea at all, but that "not" doing something is not a replacement and to prevent similar bad policies there need to be viable alternatives that acknowledge underlying imperatives. There is a reason that all modern American executives turn out as hawks of one sort or another, even Jimmy Carter, and declaiming "X is a bad idea" is like berating a whack-a-mole machine.

I think Hillary Clinton touched on this some years ago and in the recent presidential contest when grilled on Senate votes re: Iraq, that 'knowing then what we do now, I would not have voted to grant authority etc.' in that she seemed to shy away from posturing with reckless claims of what would have happened had she been in POTUS or somesuch.