The Bush policy towards Iraq is, for all its fits and starts, consistent with US designs since the 70s. Saddam ceased serving his major purpose in Aug '91; and while he was allowed to reassert his designated role in the aftermath of the Gulf War (crushing the uprisings), he has been on imperial life support ever since, and now comes time to pull the plug.
Again, I don't see how a multi-ethnic democracy is gonna come out of this, not with Kurdish and Shia nationalism in the mix, and not with the need to keep those nationalisms under control. Perhaps Rumsfeld and Co. have a plan to integrate the Kurds and Shias into a central government, along with repentant Sunnis, to oversee the oil supply and maintain regional "order." But somehow I doubt it. And with the news that the Bush admin is open to Saddam leaving and taking up exile in a third country (free, supposedly, of any war crimes charges), we see that the major players are still looking out for each other. After all, Saddam served his purpose well. That he went crazy and tried to gobble all of Kuwait didn't prove he was a "madman" -- it simply showed that he misunderstood his role and had to punished for his bad behavior.
As for the Hitchens/Nolan concept of what's to come, all I can say is, "If only." If there were a genuine desire to democratize Iraq, or to allow the Iraqis to rule themselves free of a fascist thug, then I'd have no problem with knocking Saddam out (and really don't anyway). He's got to go and will go. How and under what conditions remain to be seen.
DP