A weird definition of secular....

The Globe & Mail today has an opinion piece by Lysiane Gagnon urging Canada to withdraw from Afghanistan.
I completely disagree. However, she draws attention to Iraq where she says:

Even under the cruel regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was an advanced country, a secular one to boot, with a large class of professionals – yet another reason why the U.S. invasion was such a foolish move.

First off, it was not that advanced. It was a brutalized state - only left with the ability to build palaces (by corrupting the UN) and cause international trouble. Its infrastructure was crumbling, and it was clear that there was much to build (not to rebuilt).

And, it was NOT a secular state. Canada, the US and Western Europe are secular states. Iraq was not a secular state, and none of us would have liked to live in such a secular state. Sure, it wasn't a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia, but the fact that Saddam Hussein had the Koran written in his blood says something. He was not neutral when it came to religion, and his state did not treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion.