I especially like how earlier in the linked article the author wrote that removing Saddam has thrown Iraq into 'chaos' -- as if it was much better there before.
To some it was “much better before” – there was less street crime (no one setting off car bombs and mines). As long as a person toed the party line and was a member of the correct religion and never had a bad thought or utterance for Saddam or wasn’t a Kurd etc. etc. they would be relatively safe. Remember that to some socialists and those who believe in personal safety at any price personal safety and economic well being is paramount.
There is also a cadre of career diplomats who advocate 'stability' at any price, no matter who suffers. As observed by NRO's Jason Mowbray:
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2003/oct_2003_30.html "...State embraced Saddam Hussein more fervently after the Iran/Iraq war than it did while conflict raged. Although the Reagan Administration supported Iraq to act as a foil to Iran, State had a different reason.
After the war ended in stalemate, Iraq's Revolutionary guards forcibly relocated untold thousands [mainly Kurds] in the late 1980s, also killing 100,000. Hussein also used chemical weapons on a scale unseen since World War I. State's interpretation of this: Saddam demonstrated sufficient resolve to be a 'stabilizing force' in the region and should therefore be accorded recognition..."