Wise after the event?

I am glad that the Chilcot report has made the point that, when we decided to invade Iraq, that country and its leader, Saddam Hussain, presented no imminent threat against this country, because I remember thinking precisely that at the time.  Saddam was a brutal dictator, but under his dictatorship, Iraq was, for the region, a relatively stable, secular state, and the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sprang to mind.  Perhaps what was more exercising the minds of our and the US government was not so much that Saddam was perceived as a threat, but that his sons, one of whom presumably would have taken over from him eventually, were both psychopaths (Uday particularly) and would most definitely have been a threat.  Maybe the logic was "better to act now while we can, than have to act later when things may not be so much in our favour".  I'm sure there will be more to be said about the Chilcot report in the days to come.