neolex:
“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. ”
———-

You can make a good argument for that alternative stragegy.

After Iran seized our embassy staff as hostages, Iraq had a golden opportunity to become a favored ally of the USA. In the following years the USA provided Iraq a lot of military assistance in its war against Iran.

The USA would have guaranteed Iraq’s military security, and Iraq could have invested its oil wealth on internal development. Iraq could have become the most economically successful and culturally influential country in the Middle East.

The problem is that Saddam Hussein preferred to become a military conqueror. He dreamed of uniting the Arab world under his own personal rule by promising to defeat Israel. He was a megalomaniac. He wanted the entire Arab world, not just Iraq, to be filled with heroic paintings and statues of Saddam Hussein.

Therefore, the USA never could have afforded to buy Saddam Hussein. Besides, after 9/11 the USA basically gave the Moslem world a choice. You Moslems cannot have both 1) an Al Qaeda and 2) weapons of mass destruction, so either you Moslems yourself get rid of one of them or else we the USA will get rid of both of them for you.

It turns out we probably can’t afford to buy even Maliki, but Maliki will be satisfied with eternal personal glory for just the internal development of Iraq’s economy and society.