The author also omits to remember that Saddam, a secularist operating through a Sunni powerbase/mafia managed to control Iraq including Shi’a dominated Baghdad. Iraq’s civil government has an existential problem. If it allows strong leadership to emerge in the military, it risks a coup and return to Saddam-style dictatorship. But military weakness makes ISIS viable and discredits the government. ISIS is flourishing precisely where the pre-existing states are internally divided. The Great Islamic Conquest that ISIS would like to emulate involved some bold military action, but a lot more capitulation and movement into a political vacuum. Traditionally US foreign policy would have been to close off the contemporary vacuum. Between Bush and Obama, we have helped create it.
Saddam although tried to institute A 'secular' approach, he was a Sunni, Arab and was a genocidal maniac.
To run a country, which Iraq never was, per Saddam, was a hard task. Again, he was a Sunni, Arab and just before he died, IIRC, he said: "Palestine will always be Arab".
Per definition of "Secularist", Saddam was never one. Secularism (separation of religion and state) also means pluralism. Saddam, was an Arab, Sunni, with Stalinist bent political ideology. "Secularism" for him was very much secondary, and in the context of being Arab and Sunni.
Baghdad has been Sunni dominated for over 100 years. Even today they are by far the majority in Baghdad.