Better than nothing?

Matthew states, with regard to Iraq:

That is not to say that the war and its handling are unimpeachable (for what war could be, ever?), but to suggest a step-back to see a bigger picture, one that sees America as trying to help the world — often failing, to be sure, but still trying. Is that not quite a bit better than not trying at all?

One possible answer, from Ken Adelman:

Fearing that worse is still to come, Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself — what he defines as "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"—is dead, at least for a generation. After Iraq, he says, "it's not going to sell."

And if he, too, had his time over, Adelman says, "I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless. I guess that's what I would have said: that Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked CAN'T DO. And that's very different from LET'S GO."