It's easy to forget, or ignore, that Bill Clinton really was very hawkish president in the run-up to the Iraq War, and all signals suggest that he remains so. What this does or doesn't say about the opinions of his wife is open for debate, but you really have to be operating at a high level of support for the Iraq War to try and claim, as Clinton apparently did, that "bad as the civilian casualties have been in Iraq, they would have been far worse had the U.S. military not been there. [Clinton] went on to extrapolate, from death rates in the Balkans, that hundreds of thousands more Iraqi civilians might have died in the absence of U.S. troops than actually have done so with Americans there."
There's some ambiguity here: I read it as Clinton suggesting that more Iraqis would've died in the absence of the US invasion (i.e, through Saddam's continued repression), though it could also plausibly be seen as him suggesting that an American invasion that toppled Saddam and rapidly withdrew would've created more casualties than the path we've followed. I think that latter point is open to argument, but it's more defensible. It also suggests that Clinton envisions a continuing role for US troops in the country, though I don't know if he's stated that explicitly.
