I think the US role in Iraq over the last 14 years has been largely destructive, but it's hard for me to see how a reasonable person could prefer no involvement. Saddam would still rule over Iraq (and probably Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well) with a host of nuclear weapons that would likely ensure regional dominance for some time.
==========
You seem to be arguing that "involvement" of some sort was necessary to prevent Hussein from becoming a regional imperialist armed with atomics. So, if I'm reading you correctly, the US' "largely destructive" role was, in a greater historical sense, essential to prevent this outcome (which, I'm sorry to say, reminds me a little too much of a Tom Clancy scenario).
I'm thinking now of chickens coming before eggs (or is it the opposite?), carts being placed squarely in front of horses and other confusions of cause and effect.
Without US involvement (starting, I believe in the early 1960s?) the Hussein we knew could scarcely have existed or persevered for as long as he did -- there was synergy of purpose between Hussein and his Western benefactors. Of course, successive administrations didn't pull the trigger but they co-signed for the guns and even, in some cases, placed the piece in the killers' hand.
Of course, I don't believe the US to be responsible for every bad thing which happens everywhere but given its present cultural and governmental structure and 'great power' status it is, I would say, 'largely unqualified' to involve itself in the affairs of other nations in much the same way imperial Rome or Britain were -- motives are always tainted by the requirements of dominance.
Though I suppose, taking into account the aqueducts and the railroads, we can say the numerous bloody interventions of these great powers during their time in the sun were only "largely destructive".
DRM