Saddam was the safest leader in the Middle East to deal with. We knew that, so we armed him to the teeth to fight Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. There was no justification for the war; the WMD thing was an absolute hoax.
He (and Qaddafi) are the natural enemies of radical Islam, and we killed them (or supported their killers); now we complain about the rise of “militant Islam”. 15 of the 19 hijackers, as well as Osama Bin Laden, were Saudis (a radical Muslim country if there ever was one); instead of punishment they got more US $ and protection provided by the US military.
India is right to be very leery about supporting US military actions; they’ve been used to cover presidential infidelity, boost popularity, etc. (without making the world safer for anything). The war in the Congo should have merited some kind of intervention, but instead we throw up smoke & mirrors to get Americans who can’t find Syria on a map all worked up to kill Syrians.
I explained the justification and it had nothing to do with WMDs.
Bush was on the right path, he was justr a little too soft about it for my tastes.
Obama is the one turning our allies and those we had neutered into radical islamic states and he is doing it with a wil.
And, as I said, I understand India being leery...alreayd indicated what I felt it would take to change that...and in the end, that will be up to us and who we elect.