I watched a very interesting programme on PBS last night, "Frontline - The War Behind Closed Doors". Anyway, they were looking at the Iraq conflict from a modern (ie Gulf War to present day) historical and political perspective.
It turns out that Stormin' Norman has a lot to answer for.
At the end of the Gulf War, Bush Sr and Colin Powell were concerned that the conflict should end cleanly, and not be drawn out into a messy affair like the Vietnam and Korean Wars were. To that end, kicking Saddam out of Kuwait was the only goal. Regime change, although desirable, was not a specific goal.
So the Gulf War had crippled Iraq, and liberated Kuwait. Saddam was on the point of being toppled from within, by either the Shi'ites in the South or the Kurds in the North, and Bush was fairly confident that could happen. He delegated responsibility for the terms of the ceasefire to the military.
Saddam wanted the ceasefire at any cost. He knew that the longer the war continued the greater the chance that he was either killed or toppled. He was concerned that Iraq's territory would be eroded by the then current US land forces, but ultimately would have been willing to relinquish some of his land to retain control.
So at the ceasefire agreement the Iraqi generals were rather pleasantly surprised to hear that the US would give back all of Iraq. They asked whether they would be allowed to fly helicopters. Stormin' Norman thought for a while, realised that Iraq's roads and bridges had been badly damaged, and agreed. The Iraqi's then confirmed their request, but this time prepending the word 'armed' before 'helicopters'. Apparantly, without really thinking, Stormin' Norman reaffirmed his decision. Saddam got everything he wanted.
Those helicopters were used to great effect by Saddam to quash the uprisings. The Shi'ite uprising in the South was put down within 2 weeks, involving the brutal deaths of (estimated) tens of thousands. The Kurds in the North had been more structured than the Shi'ites. Their uprising probably would have been successful, had the US intervened and protected them, but again, was brutally put down. Helicopter gunships chased the Kurds into the mountains, firing rockets at them along the way.
Allied fighter planes were still flying daily sorties at the time, and watched this happen. The pilots were pretty pissed off (to say the least) to have to watch the helicopter gunships fire upon unarmed civilians whilst they fled. They were ordered not to get involved.
By the time the White House reacted to this brutality it was too late. Although many Kurdish lives were saved when the US set up safe refuges in the mountains, any chance of toppling Saddam was lost. From the moment the US stepped in, Iraqi helicopters ceased operations against the Kurds.
The program also looked at US (miltary related) politics stemming from the same time frame. Paul Wolfowitz was working (in the Pentagon) on his then secret policy document. It was so radical that some concerned staffers that read it leaked it to the Washington Post, where it caused disgust amongst most of the US public. It called for a change in US foreign policy, to use US military might to change the World, as opposed to managing US interests within the World. It called for preemptive strikes as opposed to reactive strikes, even where US interests were not prevalent. Supporter of this document included (surprise, surprise) Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
When GW took office, he was naive in foreign affairs. Indeed, during his election campaign, he was schooled in foreign affairs by republican delegations visting the Texas Governor's Mansion. His naivity was well demonstrated during his campaign. During the first nine months of office he kept out of foreign affairs. The hawks (Rumsfeld and Cheney) were balanced by the moderates (Powell, Rice), so nothing much was done at all.
But post September 11th, 2001, that all changed.
Many people point to one statement by the President as being the most significant statement that he's made, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed this act, and those who harbor them."
That statement opened the door for the Hawks to run the show.
As I said earlier, a fascinating programme, and well put together. I really have not done it justice here. My limited powers of expression cannot accurately portray the interviews, video footage and well written narrative, and I've completely ignored segments of the program that dealt with other relevant subject areas, e.g., Clinton and Containment, UNSCOM etc.
Apparantly you can watch it online;
Frontline - The War Behind Closed Doors 
) one to make. Not that I agree with you in this particular situation (though I have been convinced that our attitude toward other countries has been detrimental to our cause), but often it is much more difficult to discern the "good" in something than to follow the wooden "right". We need to be aware of this tendency and always check for the "good" in what we do. This may sound kind of relativistic philosophically, however I don't believe that it is. I think that many times we become so obsessed with the rules we've made, we forget what the purpose was in the first place. 
Previous Topic
Index