One can look at it from two angles.
First angle is, Saddam was a tyrant, and deserved to be taken out of power, as well as he deserved to pay for his crimes.
Second angle is a tad more difficult... Iraq has a tremendously long history. It's not called the cradle of civilization for no reason.
They went through lots of stages within their history and culture. That plays a big part in the difficulty westerners face when they try to bring them their western culture. You can't simply disregard 4000+ years of culture and history just like that.
Additionally the country has for ages territories ran by different tribes. Those tribes aren't getting along very well, or at times not at all.
The results of it is bloodshed. Killing each other over power was a daily given. Until Saddam came and took power.
He ruled with an iron fist, if we want to call it that. He forced inner peace, if necessary with brutal force. Any tribe that did not obey was taught a lesson.
We certainly don't approve of his methods. We see him as a murderer of innocent people. And we may very well be right.
But many in Iraq seen him as a protector. Now that he is gone, the situation is as it was before he came to power.
The doors are wide open for everything to start all over again.
How to change that? No idea.... Not with the approach we've had so far. Since that apparently doesn't work.
So from there.. Looking at both sides of the story.. Was it a good outcome? Was it even good to remove him?
From my western cultural influenced views I have to say yes. From the attempt of a neutral standpoint, I have to say I don't know.