Where in 91' we weren't that far removed from using Hussein to fight a proxy war against Iran. And it would have been good timing to get rid of him then while the region was in support of it. In 2006/05, the region was especially anti-America/west, and Iraq was in turmoil. As evil as he was, he did keep radical factions at bay. He had limited foreign influence while still having an element of unpredictability that kept the peace to an extent. After his removal, Iraq became a breeding ground for terrorists and emboldened the Sunni radicals who were kept in check by Suddam. A Sunni himself. As well as the Shia radicals who now felt free in Iraq. That is on top of the obvious occupation of the U.S. military in the region became a motive for more attacks. It also destroyed Iraq's working population and created a new generation of poor and desperate people who naturally would blame the invading forces, us. Though Suddam was an evil dictator and had a lot of blood on his hands, we would never really know if the pros of removing him truly outweighed the cons of the status quo. We have a lot of blood on our hands as well.
In the end, I can't confidently say whether removing Suddam was a good strategy or not. I am just giving an argument for it being a poor strategic decision. It is also likely that it was more of a mistake in how we executed the regime change than actually removing Suddam from power.
