If we broke it, do we have to fix it?

Supposedly Secretary of State Powell invoked the "pottery store rule" for President Bush with respect to the proposed invasion of Iraq, "If you break it, you buy it". That has gotten morphed into "If you broke it, you have to fix it" for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't think foreign policy should be based on simplistic slogans. What exactly is the moral obligation of the United States in these countries?

I suspect that it is different in Iraq than in Afghanistan. In both of course the United States was a principal member of a coalition that forced regime change. In Afghanistan the coalition was primarily composed of Iraqi forces that opposed the Taliban and the Taliban regime had actively supported the Al Qaeda network that was responsible for the 9/11 bombing. In Iraq the coalition was primarily foreign forces and there seems to have been no connection of the Saddam Husein regime with either Al Qaeda or 9/11. The different circumstances would seem to imply different responsibilities.

What does it mean "to fix" the situation left by the invasion? What is the range of feasible possibilities? What are the preferences of the people of these nations among feasible possibilities, and is there even a way to judge feasibility? How much of the responsibility for fixing things lies with the governments and peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan, how much with the coalition, and how much with the United States? What does the United States do if the partners in rebuilding are not pulling their weight.

I suspect that political leadership will be required to mold public opinion to do the right thing. I hope that our political leaders are debating the issues put forward in the paragraphs above in order to see the morality of our responsibility as well as the economic imperatives, the foreign policy objectives and the political opportunities.