The absence of Saddam is a huge weight off the Arab world.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Unquestionably, the world is better off without Saddam.
I think the world is much better off without Saddam Hussein than with him.
As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state.
What holds an Arab leader in power is a mixture of violence and prestige. Both President Assad and King Hussein were felt to have defended Arab interests against the world. That, in the end, is more important than what they wear on their head.
It would be hard to ignore the absence of democracy in any Arab nation.
Were there peace and justice in the Middle East, the Arabs would no more need their tinhorn dictators than they would their corpulent princes.
The idea that Arabia is best run by Arabs is no more palatable to Western leaders today than it was to Napoleon or Churchill.
The world is a better place with Saddam Hussein gone.
The world is lousy with Arab princes. And if we could have got Osama bin Laden, and saved at some point down the road 3,000 American lives, a few less Arab princes would have been OK in my book.
The most striking thing is that even before Osama bin Laden was killed, he seemed largely irrelevant to the Arab Spring.