The United States invasion of Iraq 10 years later


Return To Article
  • SajuaroSteve Tucson, AZ
    March 25, 2013 6:11 p.m.

    Invasion of Iraq was the worst policy decision of last 100 years. Both President Bush and Vice president Cheney should be in jail for their actions and mis-deeds during run-up to invasion.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 24, 2013 10:14 p.m.

    @Truthseeker2 "The source was 'Total War-Inside the New Al Qaeda.'"

    But the Total War article doesn't support your position. It says:

    "Most commentators agree that Al-Qaeda was present in Iraq before the US invasion. The question is for how long and to what extent. What is known is that Zarqawi took a direct role in Al-Qaeda’s infiltration. In March 2003 — it is not clear whether this was before or after the invasion began — he met Al-Qaeda’s military strategist, an Egyptian called Muhammad Ibrahim Makkawi, and agreed to assist Al-Qaeda operatives entering Iraq."

    Here's the quote from the Gary Gambill article I cited earlier:

    "During or shortly before the American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Zarqawi returned to Iran, where he met with bin Laden's military chief, Muhammad Ibrahim Makawi (Saif al-Adel), who asked him to coordinate the entry of al-Qaeda operatives into Iraq through Syria."

    And where's he returning from? Iraq, where he's been organizing his terror network. Before the invasion.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    March 24, 2013 8:25 p.m.

    Yep, all the arm-chair quarterback are out in force on this one. You all knew better, you all knew the answers. Baloney! I was there in 2003, and all you woulda-shoulda-coulda folks just can't accept the facts because they don't fit your agenda. We stopped a terrible dictator and his sons who were much worse, we helped a country rebuild, we stabilized the region. All you who are trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam are clueless on both and all you are doing is repeating the injustices heaped on the Vietnam Vets by denigrating their service and now you want to do that to mine and those who served with me. Please know how much I despise the second-guessing. Take Saddam out with a drone? They weren't in extensive service then and certainly not in that role.

    This editorial isn't cheer-leading, it's reviewing the events surrounding the invasion. Like it or not, that's what happened. Sorry to disappoint.

  • barakoboi Layton, UT
    March 24, 2013 3:52 p.m.

    Iraq is no better now than before under Saddam Hussein...it was a mistake going to war which has bled our country with blood and ruin us financially. Most important of all the balance of power in the region was a big gain for Iran which they don't have to worry about neighboring Iraq considering they went to war with each other back in the 80s.

  • TMR Los Angeles, CA
    March 24, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    DNews, you were wrong 10 years ago and you are wrong today. The Iraq war was misguided, unprincipled, and a waste of precious life. If you were truly interested in history, you would comment on how the neo-con movement used 9/11 as a pre-text to change the Middle East. Instead, the editorial board makes the same, tiresome (and quite confusing) argument that "we did our best with what we knew" logic. Please. War costs lives and and experimental wars that do not defend our soil and our lives are morally suspect.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 24, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    Republicans still defending the Iraq War, still misinformed, but the height of chutzpah has got to be those like wrz who take issue with those who went to Iraq, putting their lives on the line. If anybody has the right to assess the Iraq War it would be those who served--their families--and Iraqi citizens.

    More Democrats voted against the Iraq Authorization than voted for it.
    Vote Count (Senate and House combined)

    For: 111 Against: 147

    For: 263 Against: 7

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    March 24, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    While I agree with the theme of the article, I think that you have to be 99.99% certain before launching a war. The Bush administration was too trigger happy. They needed to be more certain than they were, like actually seeing the WMDs or hearing from a defector in the administration that there are WMDs and that he or she saw them. Given the costs of war, there is no room for error.

  • Millsap fan Taylorsville, UT
    March 24, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    People seem to forget that congres (including the majority of democrats) voted for and approved this war. The president doesn't have power to do that.

    Also keep in mind that women have been given rights to go out in public, go to school, drive, etc. Thousands and thousands of citizens waited in line to cast a vote for their leader. They were finally given some level of freedom and it's largely thanks to America.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 24, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    My biggest regret is that I was neutral on the 3rd Gulf War. I thought, "I am not sure that this is a good idea." I wish I had screamed bloody murder. The reason is that our invasion inserted the US into a history for which we now bear responsibility for.

    My daughter taught English to Iraqi refugees in Jordan. There was one middle aged woman. As best as I know she covered herself head-to-toe in the black veil and abaya. More than once, she would recount how her husband and her sons and grandchildren were killed and she would weep.

    That woman's suffering has the US's name all over it. We have some responsibility for that. Cheney, Rumsfeld, neo-Cons, etc and anyone who was saying 10 years ago, "This is for $20/barrel oil." Or "We will fight them there so we don't fight them here." has an extra helping in it. But we collectively have a part in her suffering because of our moral lethargy.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    The chemical weapons were not "a hoax". In today's news there is evidence that Saddam Hussein merely shipped his WMD's to Syria, where they have been found.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    March 24, 2013 7:36 a.m.


    "Paper tigers rarely invade their neighbors, such as Kuwait."

    That's the point. After the Gulf War and decade of sanctions, the Iraqi military had no ability to attack its neighbors, much less attempt to hold back the inevitable counteroffensive. Its core function by 2003 was internal security.

    "He didn't need ties to anyone. He was monster enough, killing thousands of his own people."

    Except that the Iraq war was advertised and sold to the public by the Bush Administration as the next crucial step in the Global War on Terror. Ridding the world of a monster was a fringe benefit. If overthrowing totalitarian regimes was the primary rationale for war, why are we not invading Iran, Syria, or North Korea (among others)?

    "'... I argued in favor of the war in 2002-2003...'

    So did alotta Democrat Senators...."

    I don't particularly care what others did. I can acknowledge that I was wrong, and I worked out that shame while deployed, unlike most of the armchair generals. While I'm unsurprised to find apologists in the comments, I'm disappointed in the DN editors for calling out Obama to a greater extent than Bush for this crime.

  • ronnie sandy, utah
    March 24, 2013 1:51 a.m.

    This has to be one of the DN's biggest spins ever. Even young children at the time of our invasion remember the arguments and justification for war. We all now know, it was wrong.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 24, 2013 12:48 a.m.

    @CHS 85:
    "I spent 345 day in Iraq. A year wasted out of my life..."

    Musta been at your own discretion. The military draft ended years ago.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    March 23, 2013 11:53 p.m.


    Before criticizing those in the military - I ask you - how many days did you spend in Iraq dodging IEDs? I spent 345 day in Iraq. A year wasted out of my life, my fellow soldier's lives, and many of my friends are either dead or permanently disabled.

    Funny how the strongest warmongers are have no skin in the game. It is easy to commit someone else to go to war.

    DOD stands for Department of DEFENSE, not Department of Imperialistic OFFENSE.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    March 23, 2013 11:42 p.m.


    For all we know now and knew then, are you kidding us with piece?

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 23, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    "A vote for it is NOT a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a LAST RESORT." - H. Clinton

    A very clever ducking Congressional responsibility of declaring war. By her statement she essentially handed the authority to the president... which is a violation of the US Constitution.

    "I spent 15 months deployed in Iraq, where my principle mission was to search for the 'all illusive' weapons of mass destruction..."

    Did you look in neighboring Syria?

    "Before going to war, the US should have solid reasons."

    It did. The US Congress voted to go to war... which is within it's powers, and not one of the president's powers.

    "Those of us in the military with sounder minds, knew the Iraq war was an oil grab that went bad."

    I suppose you drive a vehicle that burns gas... and maybe even heat your home with an oil burning stove.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 23, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    "We attacked a nation that had not attacked us."

    I think you're right... It was against Serbia over Kosovo... under Clinton.

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

    I don't think you want Clinton in prison... do you?

    @PA Rock Man:
    "The main reasons we invaded Iraq are that we were led to believe that Hussein had connections to 9-11..."

    Not so... Even Bush stated publicly that was not the reason... Iraq's violation of restricted airspace was one reason... And the other was WMD.

    "...and he was on his way to a nuclear weapon (yellow cake)."

    That Saddam sought yellow cake uranium from Nigeria has been proven correct:

    'On 5 February 2002, the CIA issued another intelligence report from the same foreign government service. This report included more detail and indicated that the agreement between Iraq and Nigeria totaled 500 tons of uranium a year.'

    "Bush chose (was not forced) to go to war with Iraq..."

    It would help you to remember that the US Congress declares wars, as they did the Iraq War.

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    March 23, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    "IF NECESSARY" a key phrase. Hillary Clinton's speech accompanying her vote:

    "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.....

    So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is NOT a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a LAST RESORT. . And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

    After the vote, Saddam allowed UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. They had not completed their work when Bush made the decision to attack.

    Re: Nate
    The source was "Total War-Inside the New Al Qaeda." Bush/ Cheney planning only extended to toppling Saddam. They essentially had no plan for the aftermath.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 23, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    David - I think your own words tell the story, "29 Democrats joined 48 Republicans to pass a Senate resolution on October 11 authorizing President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq:"

    The term "if necessary" is the key. Why was it necessary? Were there WMDs? No, as has been illustrated over and over again in these comments and in evidence of the last ten years. Was Iraq tied to the 9/11 attacks? Absolutely no. Were they in the [process of producing nuclear weapons? There was never any evidence found that would indicate that. The president knew that fact before he ordered the preeminent strike. So why was it necessary?

    The fact is that t wasn't. So while the Senate voted to give the president some leverage and the authority to use force, if necessary, the president never had any justification for committing our nation and our brave soldiers to a war that continues to cause misery in this nation and especially in the Middle East.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 23, 2013 9:06 p.m.

    @Roland Kayser:
    "President Obama stuck with the withdrawal timeline that was negotiated by President Bush."

    Presidents can always change withdrawal times. And they can always blame the prior administration for... almost everything.

    "I remember more doubts about the presence of WMDs once UN Inspectors were allowed back in Iraq in late 2002."

    You're extremely naive if you don't think WMD can be sequestered from the eyes of a few hapless inspectors... regardless of how talented the inspectors think they are in snooping things out.

    @Unreconstructed Reb:
    "There were plenty of dissenting opinions that Hussein was a paper tiger..."

    Paper tigers rarely invade their neighbors, such as Kuwait.

    "... that he had no ties to al-Quaeda and Bin Laden..."

    He didn't need ties to anyone. He was monster enough, killing thousands of his own people.

    "... I argued in favor of the war in 2002-2003..."

    So did alotta Democrat Senators such as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and 22 others.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:35 p.m.

    @Truthseeker "What was your source for saying Al-Zarqawi met with SADDAM's military chief?"

    That was just me typing the name of the the wrong evil madman. It should have said Bin Laden's military chief. Thanks for the correction.

    Now, please tell us where your altered paragraph came from. The original makes clear that al-Zarqawi was operating in Iraq before the invasion, building the organization which would later take the name Al Qaeda in Iraq.

    @atl134 "We created the power vacuum."

    Precisely. Knowing who would be there trying to fill it. (They had already begun to make preparations.) We know from intercepted communications that al-Qaeda considered the Iraq invasion a blunder. They went in to capitalize on it, and were met with a solid defeat.

    The American Left did its part. In order to fall into our trap, al-Qaeda needed to be convinced that 1) Bush was too stupid to be playing chess with them, and 2) America didn't have the will to win. Good job, lefties! You brought them out of the shadows and onto the battlefield.

    Either that, or it just turned out that way.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:24 p.m.

    I thought this was a really fair and well argued editorial. Needless to say, all the water carriers of the left attacked the DN editorial position. Have you all completely forgotten what emotions in America were like after 9/11? Let's drop the holier than thou routine. Who are you to say how things would have gone had Saddam Hussein been allowed to remain in power? It's so true that the American left are always gung ho for war in places where America has no national interest at stake (e.g. the Balkans) but opposed to wars when we do have a national interest at stake (e.g Iraq). We needed an imperialistic overtone to our efforts in Iraq and the fact is, America doesn't do imperialism very well ( and I'm not an imperialist)

  • David Centerville, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:00 p.m.

    In fact, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough blames the Iraq war on DEMOCRATS who voted for the resolution to go to war. The war wouldn't have happened without a large contingency of Democrats supporting it.

    In addition to the list of Senate Democrats I posted earlier, 40% of House Democrats also supported the Iraq war and voted for it, including...Nancy Pelosi.

    This comment board is full of liberals who have very short memories. Their colors are very apparent--they cast blame at Republicans for political leverage and to strengthen their own party, when in reality both parties made the wrong choice to go to war.

  • David Centerville, UT
    March 23, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    Yes to Disarming Iraq
    29 Democrats joined 48 Republicans to pass a Senate resolution on October 11 authorizing President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq:

    Max Baucus (Mont.)
    Evan Bayh (Ind.)
    Joe Biden (Del.) - Current VP
    John Breaux (La.)
    Maria Cantwell (Wash.)
    Jean Carnahan (Mo.)
    Tom Carper (Del.)
    Max Cleland (Ga.)
    Hillary Clinton (N.Y.)-Former presidential candidate, secretary of state, presumed future presidential candidate
    Tom Daschle (S.D.)-Former Senate Majority Leader
    Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
    Byron Dorgan (N.D.)
    John Edwards (N.C.)-Former presidential candidate
    Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)-Interesting
    Tom Harkin (Iowa)
    Fritz Hollings (S.C.)
    Tim Johnson (S.D.)
    John Kerry (Mass.)-current Secretary of State
    Herb Kohl (Wis.)
    Mary Landrieu (La.)
    Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
    Blanche Lincoln (Ark.)
    Zell Miller (Ga.)
    Ben Nelson (Neb.)
    Bill Nelson (Fla.)
    Harry Reid (Nev.)-current Senate Majority Leader
    John Rockefeller (W.Va.)
    Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
    Bob Torricelli (N.J.)

    Big Surprise to many here that Hillary is on the list, huh? These are some of the men and women that helped give Bush the ok. Yet it's Bush's fault? Takes more than just the President. Think about it!

  • David Centerville, UT
    March 23, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    The Iraq War was a mistake.

    But it is educational to remember that a large majority of Democrats joined with Republicans and voted to go to war. Leaders of other nations across the globe supported the Iraq War efforts, though not as numerous as the support during the first Iraq War.

    Despite bipartisan support for the war, we now clearly understand that the war was a mistake in so many ways: pre-war intelligence, a rush to war, ulterior motives for war, mishandling of the power vacuum in Iraq, getting bogged down there, abuses (Abu Ghraib), mishandling money, poor planning, taking our eye off Afghanistan, Al-Qaida and bin-Laden, etc.

    Liberals now enjoy blaming Republicans for the war because the GOP held the White House. Their convenient amnesia regarding their own support and involvement (votes) only heightens partisanship.

    We must learn from the mistakes that were the Iraq War and try to avoid repeating those mistakes again.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 23, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    What was your source for saying Al-Zarqawi met with SADDAM's military chief?

    I didn't take the material from Gambill or an article referencing Gambill. The bottom line is, the U.S. invasion of Iraq provided another front for Al Qaeda to battle with the U.S. and the Bush Adminstration falsely reported Saddam was tied to 9/11.

    The 9/11 Commission stated in its report that bin Laden had been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. Those forces mostly operated in areas not under Saddam's control.

    The US intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks. According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely. The Senate Report discussed the possibility of Saddam offering al-Qaeda training and safe-haven, but confirmed the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    March 23, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    It's all too easy to forget that we INVADED a sovereign nation on a pretext.

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    March 23, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    Being the tactical sailor (weapon control, and tracking) that I was in the Navy, you always listen to the "Boots on Deck". In the case of Iraq, it was the American Weapons Inspector (don't remember his name) for U.N. who stated "there are no WMD's in Iraq". Which meant there are no WMD's in Iraq. The most we should of done in Iraq was bomb the terrorist camps on the Iran border, and that was it! Iraq was tactically sound prior to the invasion, they were a buffer zone with Iran, and had been slapped back during the Gulf war. Those of us in the military with sounder minds, knew the Iraq war was an oil grab that went bad. In the past decade, we are losing the advantage in the gulf, and will do so until lost.

  • aazyzx MILFORD, UT
    March 23, 2013 4:39 p.m.

    Just two simple thoughts:

    1. This would have been a better article if it had included the total, entire, complete dollar figure that the US taxpayer has spent in Iraq.

    2. Should we not have learned enough from this mistake to stop rattling the war drums about nukes in Iran and chemical weapons in Syria?

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    In 200 words I cannot give this editorial the fisking it deserves.

    There are two huge gaps in logic. First, that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator does not mean the US needed to go to war to remove him from power. Second, the poor condition in Iraq today deplored by the editorial are a direct result of the US invasion, not a justification for it or for continuing our occupation of Iraq.

    The editorial is wrong when it attempts to shift discussion from the reasons for the invasion to the lessons learned by its failure. Before going to war, the US should have solid reasons. There was an ever shifting menu of rationales for war in Iraq, never a good reason. The media, including the D-News, did a terrible job in the months leading up to the war of fact checking and challenging the official assumptions and statements by government officials. There was no candid debate, no honest exploration.

    In 2002 and 2003, polls showed Americans deeply divided about the war before it started. But the public debate was deformed and opposing voices silenced and ignored.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 23, 2013 3:29 p.m.


    You ask about sources: look carefully at the first paragraph you posted at 12:23 today. The original material came from "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: A Biographical Sketch", by Gary Gambill, published in Terrorism Monitor on Dec. 15, 2004. However, your version has been altered from the original, with the words "shortly after" replacing "during or shortly before". Note that in the preceding paragraph in Gambill's article, al-Zarqawi is already operating in Iraq. When he returns to Iran, he is returning there from Iraq and Syria.

    Whatever your source was for that paragraph, you should never trust it again. If you were the one who altered it...well, that's wrong. I'm also wondering why you would lift an entire paragraph without mentioning the fact that it's borrowed.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    "Don't forget who the real enemy was (and is). Al-Qaeda suffered a major defeat in Iraq. They had hoped to go into the power vacuum "

    Power vacuum? We created the power vacuum. The only reason we had to deal with that is because of the situation we made in the first place.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 23, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    The Editorial Board not only got it wrong 10 years ago, it still has not come clean. Back then our leaders and others were easily influenced to believe anything that led to war. But what is the Editorial Board's excuse now. They must still believe in the WMD and nuclear threat idea. As a nation we should embarrassed. One of the saddest and most regrettable events is we testified before the UN Security Council about so much misinformation and lies. Through out our history our country has never mislead so many people.

    According to the Editorial Board Obama, (one of the few against the war) is part to blame because he pulled the troops out too soon. So tell me how many more trillions of dollars should we spend over there?

  • jmason San Diego, CA
    March 23, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    War for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was an abstract concept, in fact to Dubya it was an "adventure" (as he said to troops in Afghanistan). Having never experienced war first-hand (Cheney alone took six deferments during the Vietnam War), invading Iraq was a cinch, a no-brainer. I was in a Provo dentists office 2-3 weeks before the invasion, and when I expressed concern about the wisdom of invading Iraq, and about the morality of pre-emptive war, there was hoots and hollers of derision all round (there were a half dozen or so people in the room).

    Hugh Nibley said the peculiar failing of LDS people, of this culture, is "zeal without knowledge". But this assessment is not limited to LDS people/culture. I think it also applied to the admin of Bush/Cheney, at least the first four years.

  • Steve Hughes Saratoga, UT
    March 23, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    Very disappointing editorial. I disagree completely that" U.S. intelligence experts felt sure he possessed weapons of mass destruction."
    Ambassador Joseph Wilson visited the Nigerian couunrty in response to the rumors the Nigerian government had sold processed uranium to Iraq and found it patently false. He reported his findings to the highest levels of our Government without avail. For his outspoken efforts he was discredited and our government deliberately leaked the name of his wife who worked for the CIA. This war was unnecessary and immoral. This doctrine of preemptive attack is nonsense. We have no moral right to invade a country which has not attacked us period. The Bush administration lied to the American people and criticized and punished those who stood in their way.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 23, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    What are your sources?
    Shortly AFTER the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Zarqawi returned to Iran, where he met with bin Laden's military chief, Saif al-Adel (Muhammad Ibrahim Makawi), who asked him to coordinate the entry of al-Qaeda operatives into Iraq through Syria

    Prior to 2003, Zarqawi was largely an independent terrorist. He didn't declare allegiance to Al Quaeda until 2004. Even after he declared allegiance the ties weren't close, for example, bin Laden wasn't happy that Zarqawi targeted Shia in Iraq.

    According to the 2006 Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence, "in April 2003 the CIA learned from a senior al-Qa'ida detainee that al-Zarqawi had rebuffed several efforts by bin Ladin to recruit him. The detainee claimed that al-Zarqawi had religious differences with bin Ladin and disagreed with bin Laden's singular focus against the U.S. The CIA assessed in April 2003 that al-Zarqawi planned and directed independent terrorist operations without al Qaeda direction, but assessed that he 'most likely contracts out his network's services to al Qaeda in return for material and financial assistance from key al Qaeda facilitators.'"

    Correction to previous post:
    Delete the "lingering effect" sentence

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    March 23, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    There is no doubt that the DN crowd was badly snookered by the neoconservative maneuver to invade Iraq. Fooled once was bad enough, but now, ten years later, to naively persist in the same mistaken thinking that with so little benefit has cost us so dearly in national blood and treasure is shameful.

    Perhaps universal conscription and a hefty war tax would temper our enthusiasm for war.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 23, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    Al-queda is Globalist controlled now. They help the CIA destablize countries overseas. They put Lybia under Al-queda(Globalists) control when they murdered Ghaddafi. They pretty much made Lybia a much worse place to live just like they made Egypt a worse place to live when they put it under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood (Globalists)

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 23, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    Don't forget who the real enemy was (and is). Al-Qaeda suffered a major defeat in Iraq. They had hoped to go into the power vacuum and gain control of Iraq's oil wealth, and use it to launch global terror. This didn't turn out so well for them, thanks to our determined soldiers. Whether or not Iraq had official ties with al-Qaeda, it still had strategic importance to them -- enough that they were willing to go there and die.

    @Hans Blix via Truthseeker "...terrorist group didn't exist in the country until after the invasion."

    False. Al-Zarqawi fled to Iraq before the invasion. He met with Saddam's military chief, who asked him to help bring al-Qaeda operatives across the border from Syria into Iraq. He was happy to comply.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 23, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    "The war aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but there weren't any.
    The war aimed to eliminate al Qaeda in Iraq, but the terrorist group didn't exist in the country until after the invasion.
    The lingering effect of war on Iraqis 10 years later: Iraq's phantom WMD Teens see no hope for future in Iraq Iconic moments from 2003 Iraq War
    The war aimed to make Iraq a model democracy based on law, but it replaced tyranny with anarchy and led America to practices that violated the laws of war.
    The war aimed to transform Iraq to a friendly base for U.S. troops capable to act, if needed, against Iran -- but instead it gave Iran a new ally in Baghdad."
    (Hans Blix)

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    March 23, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    I always knew that the DN was more interested in right-wing propaganda than in reporting news, but this is downright awe-inspiring. I shudder to think what sort of editorials you'd be running if Romney was in the White House right now...

  • Barnes Washington, DC
    March 23, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    After reading this "editorial" I could hardly wait to login and add my two cents, however, after reading all of the other comments I realized everything I wanted to say has already been well stated. Who wrote this completely misguided/self serving editorial? At least the author(s) should have the courage to associate their name(s) with their "work"...but then again, after reading the editorial I am not sure I would want my name associated with it either. I spent 15 months deployed in Iraq, where my principle mission was to search for the "all illusive" weapons of mass destruction (one of, if not the principle, basis for the invastion). So I had a front row seat to the lies and spin perpetuated by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crew. There is absolutely not doubt that invading Iraq was a horrible mistake and any attempt to try and spin it any other way is completely irrespondible journalism.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 23, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    Today's editorial marking 10 years since the start of the Iraq War coincides with the 10-year anniversary of the Deseret News editorial in which you wholeheartedly supported the case for war with Iraq. Your February 6, 2003, editorial asserted that the case against Iraq was "irrefutable and undeniable." You also called it "strong and convincing."

    It was, of course, none of the above, and your editorial today was equally weak and unconvincing.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    "But the invasion itself was entirely understandable."

    I was a 10th grader in high school at the time the war started. In history class we'd have short daily updates on the situation at the start of it. The most common thought in my mind was "there's no logical reason for this". There were no links to Al-Qaida. There was no evidence of nuclear weapons projects (as opposed to say North Korea who was actively working on it and now have them). Sure Saddam was a bad man but heck, that applies to the leaders of probably 1-2 dozen nations around the world at any given time so it can hardly be a sufficient reason to invade a nation. 10 years later it looks like my skepticism has been rather validated.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    Another in a long line of problems caused by the Iraq war mistake was the spinning of weak justifications for the Trillion dollar unfunded war. The only way to support the war is to abandon reason and objectivity as demonstrated by this article. Then you blindly support your side no matter the consequences. Next time we should pay for any war in cash form each citizen instead of spending trillions on credit and maybe actually think about the reasons and consequences.

  • hymn to the silent Holladay, UT
    March 23, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    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.

  • rick122948 boise, id
    March 23, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    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.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    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?)

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 23, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    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.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 23, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    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.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 23, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 23, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    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?

  • John Lorz South Jordan, UT
    March 23, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    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.

  • PA Rock Man Allentown, PA
    March 23, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    March 23, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    "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?

  • Andy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 23, 2013 7:14 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 23, 2013 5:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    March 23, 2013 4:34 a.m.

    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.

  • UT Brit London, England
    March 23, 2013 3:06 a.m.

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

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 23, 2013 1:04 a.m.

    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."

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    March 23, 2013 12:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 23, 2013 12:14 a.m.

    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.