I'm not really sure as to why some people think that Iraq would have been so much more stable if we had left Saddam Hussein in charge. I mean, there would probably have been uprisings against him, beginning at around the same time as all of the other protests during the 'Arab spring'. Indeed, there would probably have been religious rebels, only of a Shia, not Sunni, variety (who would probably have been backed by Iran). Assad failed to nip his own rebelion in the bud, which can be seen by the ongoing civil war in Syria which shows no sign of ending. I fail to see how it would have been any different in Iraq with Saddam in power, aside from whom precisely the rebels were.
Even if somehow it's not much difference, at least we wouldn't have pissed away over $1 trillion and several thousand American lives looking like asses to the whole world.
