Terribus: Your refutation of Little Hawk largely corresponds with my assessment, but we differ in degree on the reasons and consequences of the war.

I still think the war did nothing to increase stability in the region.
The Israelis and the Iranians could cause a conflagration that would kill millions. The three groups in Iraq continue to kill and maim each other.

Certainly Saddam and his party ruled with an iron hand. The potential was there to reduce the Shia (and Kurds) or drive many of them out; how many would die is speculation but I agree that the number would be high. The potential also was there to draw other nations with large Shia populations into conflict.

I would up the deaths as a consequence of the invasion. Al least 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, many for no reason, in Desert Storm. The number of non-combatant deaths, through military action or through disease and starvation, was more than 100,000, perhaps double that figure (again, speculation).

So, was the war justified? Conditionally I would agree, but with the ability of the air forces to take out defense and supply, it could have been done with much less loss of life.

Now a "nation" is left with the same divisions as before, but with the Shia on top. I fail to see that stability can be attained.