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..."