I find that binary choice very hard to accept. Iraq may have been better off in some measurable sense when Saddam was in power than it is now, but that doesn’t mean much. There may have been some periods of time during Saddam’s regime when things were normal, and not much was going on.
Iraq shouldn’t be. There really is no “Iraq.” All Saddam did was repress dissident factions enough for his own party to pump oil. As opposed to now where the factions fight each other and no oil is pumped. So, Iraq has gone from worse to worse.
(Either way, Bush’s golden visions for Iraq have failed miserably)
The end result is going to be much what many predicted over a decade ago if Saddam was removed. Some Syria-like middle country, Kurdistan (perhaps occupied by Turkey, perhaps not), and some Iran-like southern country (which may or may not envelope Kuwait). This leaves Iran stronger, Syria stronger, and weakens Europe by potentially causing further schism with Turkey.
The denial about this, the attempt to keep Iraq in one piece, is itself what is causing the problem and has since the British left.