1.
I don't think Saddam was pursuing WMD's at that point anymore. Read al Baradei's book "The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times" you'll see what the UN inspectors and IAEA's perspective on that was. Saddam would never cooperate with Islamic fundamentalists, that is highly unlikely, they are absolute enemies, secular dictators are one of the fundamentalists biggest enemies. In fact I think in a war on fundamentalist groups, secular dictators such as Bashar and Saddam would probably almost always be your biggest ally in such a war.
2. That's because its a pointless question. You want me to answer if the US should have pulled out completely in 2011-2012? I think it would have made little difference other than postponing the inevitable. The damage was already done in the invasion. Unless the US was completely committed in building a country from scratch in Iraq, and actually put a lot of resources to ensure that Iraq was able to build legitimate institutions, then a vacuum of power was inevitable, and when that happens ISIS will always be ready to pounce on such an opportunity.
1. You are wrong. According to the official sources, Saddam did not have WMDs but he was trying to get them. He was just waiting for the inspectors to leave.
Saddam was a typical secular dictator until the Gulf War.
"Saddam routinely cited his survival as "proof" that Iraq had in fact won the war against the U.S. This message earned Saddam a great deal of popularity in many sectors of the Arab world. John Esposito, however, claims that "Arabs and Muslims were pulled in two directions. That they rallied not so much to Saddam Hussein as to the bipolar nature of the confrontation (the West versus the Arab Muslim world) and the issues that Saddam proclaimed: Arab unity, self-sufficiency, and social justice." As a result, Saddam Hussein appealed to many people for the same reasons that attracted more and more followers to Islamic revivalism and also for the same reasons that fueled anti-Western feelings.[52]
As one U.S. Muslim observer noted: "People forgot about Saddam's record and concentrated on America ... Saddam Hussein might be wrong, but it is not America who should correct him." A shift was, therefore, clearly visible among many Islamic movements in the post war period "from an initial Islamic ideological rejection of Saddam Hussein, the secular persecutor of Islamic movements, and his invasion of Kuwait to a more populist Arab nationalist, anti-imperialist support for Saddam (or more precisely those issues he represented or championed) and the condemnation of foreign intervention and occupation."[52]
Saddam, therefore, increasingly portrayed himself as a devout Muslim, in an effort to co-opt the conservative religious segments of society. Some elements of Sharia law were re-introduced, and the ritual phrase "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great"), in Saddam's handwriting, was added to the national flag. Saddam also commissioned the production of a "Blood Qur'an", written using 27 litres of his own blood, to thank God for saving him from various dangers and conspiracies.[77]"
2. I just don't agree with you here. The question is important because for me had the USA stayed longer in Iraq and/or not supported the insurgents in Syria, there would have been no ISIS. Check the statistic on violent deaths in Iraq. Things were getting much better after 2007/8 and in fact, they were better than during Saddam. You just don't leave before the job is done. The USA fucked it up because Obama he wanted to keep his promise before the election.
Buy on AliExpress.com
It's been a while since I've done some reading myself.
