neolex said:

“Saddam’s removal was a MISTAKE. US should have bought him. As far as ME dictators go, Saddam had a stabilizing role in the region, until he decided to get greedy that is.”

Saddam was once useful but never a stabilizing influence. Saddam kept the Iranians busy for years in the Iran-Iraq War after Khomeini’s rise to power. Both Iran and Iraq would have been incredibly dangerous if they hadn’t dissipated themselves in that disasterous war. Saddam then showed himself to be an international liability when he started using WMDs (Sarin, etc.) against the Iranian military and his own people. Saddam removed all doubt that he was a danger to the world when he made his grab for the world’s energy supply through the Kuwait invasion. The elder President Bush had hoped that the Iraqi people themselves would dispose of Saddam but they did not (Iraqi society was too dysfunctional after decades of totalitarian rule). The Iraqis’ failure to remove Saddam set the clock running for when someone else would have to take him down. However 9/11 changed the whole political dynamic. 9/11 demanded a response and taking down Saddam was geopolitically correct. Not only was a dangerous tyrant removed but Iraq became an Islamic fascist killing area. There are now tens of thousands of jihadiis enjoying their virgins in the afterlife, who might otherwise have been setting off suicide vests in Jerusalem, London or New York. The Iraq War was strategically correct.