Comments about ‘The United States invasion of Iraq 10 years later’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, March 23 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

President Obama stuck with the withdrawal timeline that was negotiated by President Bush. It is completely dishonest of you to criticize President Obama for the premature withdrawal.

Springville, UT

Of course trust the Des News to still try and carry the water for the Bush administrations complete and utter failure of a war.

Nice to know some things never change.


This editorial merely repeats the fairy tale version of events leading to the Iraq War.
I remember more doubts about the presence of WMDs once UN Inspectors were allowed back in Iraq in late 2002.

From the UN Weapons Inspectors report to the Security Council PRIOR to the Iraq War:

"The Director-General of the IAEA, Mr. ElBaradei, reported that, after three months of intrusive inspections, the Agency had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. There was also no indication that Iraq had attempted to import uranium since 1990 or that it had attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment.

IGOR S. IVANOV, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said......The submitted report demonstrated that, thanks to pressure on Baghdad, including through military build-up, progress had been achieved in implementing resolution 1441 (2002). Enhanced inspections were under way. Inspectors had been given immediate and unconditional access to all sites, and, on the whole, the level of cooperation was thoroughly different from the practice that UNSCOM had encountered."

UT Brit
London, England

I thought it was a stupid decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and I still thunk it was a stupid decision in 2013.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

While your cautionary advice on judging history based on the knowledge we have now is commendable, the problem is that there was plenty of evidence in the run-up to the war that we were not thinking clearly. There were plenty of dissenting opinions that Hussein was a paper tiger, that he had no ties to al-Quaeda and Bin Laden, and that he had no military capability to renew aggressions against his neignbors. Dissenters were told they were unpartiotic and should shut up.

There were people asking questions about what would come after he was overthrown in terms of nation-building, destabilizing the region, and fighting an insurgency. They were dismissed and ignored because we would be hailed as liberators establishing freedom.

There were people asking how the war would be funded. They were told that the Iraqis would gladly pay us back with oil revenues.

To my deep regret, I argued in favor of the war in 2002-2003, disregarding the skeptics. And I had skin in the game by getting deployed over there. But I can admit that I was wrong. Too bad the DN editorial board cannot to the same.

Far East USA, SC

This article makes a perfect case for a drone attack taking out Saddam while he slept.

Problem solved. Thousands of lives saved. Trillions of dollars saved.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

Sorry, but I thought at the time and continue to think, that Iraq was a misguided distraction that from Afghanistan. There are dictators and almost dictators all around the world, then why intervene in Iraq? The Bush doctrine has borne out with several regimes in the region falling like the dominoes they were, but it has not gone nearly as smoothly or favorably as Bush hoped.

I like Bush and thought he generally did a good job. But there were forces in his cabinennt that he should have reigned in. He should have horse-shedded or moderated the more extreme ideologues.

Unfortunately Bush's term weakened the Republican party to the point that I don't see another likely win of President, despite wins at the Governor level. The public distates for republican politics, the spectacular spending and the precedent for even more spectacular spending are the greatest tragedies of the Bush administration.

Sandy, UT

"But the invasion itself was entirely understandable." It was? We attacked a nation that had not attacked us. We started a preemptive war and most people were ok with it.

In the rule of law can someone murder someone as a preemptive measure and not go to prison?

PA Rock Man
Allentown, PA

I think that 10 years is enough time to conclude that the invasion of Iraq was a moral and military mistake. If the moral standard for invading a sovereign nation is that it is led by a burtal dictator that thumbs his nose at the international community, then how come we have not invaded Iran, North Korea, or even Syria? The main reasons we invaded Iraq are that we were led to believe that Hussein had connections to 9-11 and he was on his way to a nuclear weapon (yellow cake). If the American public had known the truth about those two things they never would have supported the expenditure of blood and treasure on the war.

One last thought, maybe the Deseret News should do a scientific survey of combat soldiers who served in Iraq and ask them if they thought the war was worth it.

John Lorz
South Jordan, UT

While you are correct that judging acts of a previous age using the knowledge made available through the perspective of time the eclipsing error is having journalists fail to do their jobs in exposing George Bush's history of mendacity. I have learned and now your editorial amounts to nothing but excusing your jingo journalism.

American Fork, UT

The Iraq invasion was wrong from day one, and no amount of postmortem excuse making will make it right. Every bit of rationale the bush administration came up with to invade at the time made a stronger argument for invading North Korea than Iraq, (unstable dictator, real, not imaginary WMD, axis of evil charter member, threatening other countries including the USA) but there's no oil in North Korea, is there?

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The sad truth is that the true story of the Iraq war will never be told. The history of any war is in the agenda of the teller. And since all governments are commercially directed with the goal of wealth and power, the true nature of war will always be covered up by phony reasons. It’s hard to get men to fight and die just to make another man rich.

Sandy, UT

This editorial is stunning in its willingness to cover for the Bush-Cheney WMD fabrications that so many of us recognized even back then. I'm not sure what motivates them to sacrifice their credibility at this point in time. This is a genuine head-shaker.

Burke, VA

The DN Editorial staff spends two paragraphs and 236 words to list the atrocities of Saddam Hussein and that is juts a brief summary of his dirty deeds. Certainly pages could be filled with the inhumane acts of this despicable despot. Wouldn't it have been nice if the Bush Administration used any of these reasons for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But it didn't. Instead it told outright lies to the American people about the existence of WMDs (did any of the experts actually ever see any of these weapons). It used hyperbole st scare the American public - "We don't want the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." It told lies about the purchase of yellow cake uranium and then jeopardized the life of a covert agent and compromised many of her operations in their attempts to discredit her husband, the man who revealed their lies. And through it's deceitful actions over 4500 of Americas brave soldiers lost their lives...for a lie.

There was nothing honorable about any part of the War in Iraq and neither ten years hindsight or the belated justification for an unjustified war will ever make it right.

salt lake city, utah

Without going into details becuase others have all ready done it here..what hindsight and ten years have shown us is that there was not only no evidence that he had weapons of mass destruction but our government from the intelligence community to our highest elected officials knew this and lied to us. Yes lied to us. First hand accounts abound now from insiders at the highest levels of both the intelligence community and the administration of how they knew the country was broken, the aluminum tubes couldn't possibly be used for nuclear production, of how the yellow cake story was fabricated etc. etc.

DN you have done a real disservice to your credability as a viable new organization with this editiorial. Yes, there is much to learn from history..but those lessons don't include repeating ideological falsehoods..in fact the lesson is exactly the opposite.

one old man
Ogden, UT

That war was WRONG and still is wrong.

(Okay, censors, I just took out the upper case letters in the second wrong. Does it pass muster now?)

Salt Lake City, UT

Bush chose (was not forced) to go to war with Iraq, and ten years later, the US is no safer for that decision. Iraq was a war of choice, not of necessity, no matter how much apologists want to say otherwise. On top of that, the real fight was in Afghanistan. After 9/11, our message to the world was "we will seek out and destroy terrorist organizations anywhere in the world and will remove the governments that harbor them." That was an important and necessary message. With Iraq, the message changed to "we will remove an occasional despot leader." The world has plenty of despot leaders. Bush chose to attack this despot leader for personal reasons, not for the safety of the US. It weakened our message to the world in the war on terror. It weakened the effectiveness of our troops by speading them too thin. It wracked our economy. In 2001, we had an unstable Iraq. Ten years later, we have an unstable Iraq, thousands of dead or maimed soldiers, and trillions in new debt. It was not worth the price.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

The war was wrong when it started.

It was wrong during the occupation.

And it is still wrong during the rebuilding.

It was, is, and always will be wrong.

We had absolutely NO right to invade that country. In fact, we have NO right to invade any country unless we are directly attacked by that country.

How many more Americans must die before repubs admit that their president was wrong in his decision to invade Iraq? How many more need to be maimed? How many trillions must be spent? How many Iraqi civilians must be slaughtered?


A quagmire that will never be resolved. They are just as bad if not worse today than even before the invasion. One of the worst decisions ever made by an American president was bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Lastly, demeaning and belittling those who spoke and who currently speak in opposition to war is completely unnecessary and ridiculous. Shame on you dnews for publishing this pathetic drivel.

boise, id

Rather than trying to excuse flawed and a self serving agenda, why not look at the real reasons for our invasion. I told my sons, when GW was elected, that he would find some pretense to invade Iraq to vindicate a perceived failure of his father to remove Sadaam in Desert Storm. We as a country and society have a long history of reapplying flawed and failed solutions over and over hoping for a different result. We just refuse to learn from the mistakes.

hymn to the silent
Holladay, UT

Bush misplayed what could have been one of the greatest moments in history. At a time when our Country was reeling from the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, when there was more support for going to war than even previous to WWll, Bush could have called for calmer heads, civilized responses; harsh punishments and heightened world security. He could have isolated the criminals and fought back with a few precision strikes aimed at terrorist camps. But instead, he stormed out of the White house in his pajamas firing his shotgun in the general direction of the threat then sent our best and bravest into the hornet's nest he created to clean it up. Nobody has more weapons of mass destruction than we do. And nobody has a better defense system for deterring attacks on our soil. A calmer head, a real leader would have led the masses to a better place. Opportunity missed.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments