Yes, we did set Hussein up, and this turned out to be a bad thing for Iraq, and the Middle East as a whole.

The reason we are there now is because Hussein refused to cooperate with UN sanctions and faced "drastic measures". We are not taking him down because we put him up. We're taking him down because he is an international criminal, and was a known threat to the security of the United States of America.

The argument may now continue.

As for "cavalier pronouncements about 'inconsequential' deaths and destruction caused by our activities", there can be none, for no death or loss can ever be considered inconsequential. I recall arguments about the deaths and property losses, both civilian and military, to be incredibly minimal for any war effort, but I don't think that was ever meant to be taken as cavalier. From a tactician’s standpoint, there are innumerable errors that can be picked out from all participants in the Battle for Iraq and the subsequent occupation:

* not enough initial forces to hold the fallen nation
* not prepared for so unexpectedly-fast an assault on the capital city
* excellent security for embedded media reps, but almost none for the news-chasers on the ground (only our problem if we want them to report what we want, not what the enemy wants)
* ill-prepared with translators for the tribal tongues
* the UN and ICRC security flaws for the past couple months
* 80% of the top-dogs are captured or killed, but the harp continues to ring for the remaining 20%
* poor security on the supply train earlier this week
* our PR has always been our actions, and they have received positive reviews with the Iraqi people, but more needs to be done at street level, and at least in Arabic
* in-house bickering among our troops considered a hard sign of low morale, when it's merely in-house bickering

...but the overall reading for Iraq is success.

Dan