It was not stable, nor would having troops there ever secure the situation. We are dealing with a transnational force of Islam. Saddam kept it stable enough for US, that balance was tipped unneeded.
There was no peace, it was simply a ebb in the war. That is the nature of the war of the flea that terrorist and insurgents wage. Unless we have total war, which we are inclined to do, being there would have only killed more of our boys.
As for the decaying weapons you can being your reading here. The DoD didn't even honor our men by trying to help them.
'The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.'
Decaying is a misnomer. Degrading at a very slow rate would be more apt.
Let's not forget that saddam fired on coalition aircraft on a daily basis. The US fielded forces to invade in 1998 when saddam back down and started playing cat and mouse with inspectors again.
Saddam's son in law defected to Jordan in 96 and said that saddam was still building wmd.
In 96 saddam invited ayman al zawahiri to iraq to discuss mutual operatioons.
zarqawi of al queda was at ansar al islam in iraq, working on wmd at saddams invite.
Let's not forget Oil For Food, the yellowcake, convoys of trucks into Syria before the war, The Bomb in My Back Yard, the 10s of thousands of chemical weapons now in isis hands that were in UN sealed bunkers.
That that there were no wmds, that saddam wouldn't work with jihadist and that Iraq was no threat are all myths
Revisionist history made up by the left to hurt the war effort.
After 9/11 I don't see how we couldn't deal with the threat projected by Iraq.
As for our troops being injured by mishandled wmd and denied care, I belive that it's true but it's not relevant to this discussion about whether we should have gone into Iraq.