I don't think Hitler is the right comparison, because he wasn't simply being brutal to his own people. He was building an immense military machine, and invading other countries.

Not a lot of opposition, although there was some, to Desert Storm. Saddam had seized Kuwait, and was threatening Saudi Arabia, potentially controlling about 40% of the world's oil supply. Fighting a war to push an invader back - there's a logical endpoint. I think we've seen that wars to change regimes - they tend not to end. And that leads to so many unforeseen consequences.

I doubt in 2003 that W meant to empower Iran. But really, W's foreign policy benefitted Iran more than any other country. Iraqis may or may not be in a better place in a Saddam-less Iraq (I bet you get different answers from different Iraqis), but the world might actually be a far more stable place if we hadn't interfered. We'd probably never have heard of ISIS. Maybe no major refugee crisis.

When it comes to wars of pure regime change, long, drawn out bloody meat grinders should be the expectation, so rational cost benefit analysis should usually lead to other options.
[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 04/22/2017 10:13AM]