Robert Bennett: Is the world better off because of the Iraq War?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    A few questions I would like answered from the article. My personal opinion is a little different.

    1) " Bush had genuine reason to believe that action in Iraq would help defeat al-Qaida"
    Was al-Qaida in Iraq at the time of the invasion? No. Was Saddam in league with al-Qaida at the time of the invasion? No. Saddam was a secularist look up the definition. The "Beards" with al-Qaida were fundamentalists look up the definition. Did "action in Iraq" bring al-Qaida to Iraq? Could we say the secularists were enemies of al-Qaida? When Saddam was deposed did this open up the door to al-Qaida activity in Iraq?

    2) "Plenty of support.." Does he mean a majority of the advisors in CIA, DofD, and other intelligence agencies or does he mean that certain influential political leaders repeatedly asked for validation of the views?

    3) "Is Iraq better off?" How about the question is America better off? I have read some estimates that it will take us until 2048 to pay off the borrowed money. What items are we ready to cut from our budget to pay this debt?

  • ronnie sandy, utah
    March 25, 2013 7:38 p.m.

    If nothing else this editorial, like the one yesterday is very entertaining. Polling across the country decisively suggests that waging war with Iraq was a dumb thing to do and a mistake. With the passing of time the polling has become even more one sided.

    "David Kay's words, Iraq under Saddam was "More dangerous ... potentially than ... we thought ... before the war." That is David Kay's words to save face as he had wrongfully predicted There was vast amounts of WMD's and nuclear capability. He eventually said is he thought that Iraq "potentially" could be a threat Mr. Bennett knows full well that is not why we went to war. Don't look now but Iran is further along than Iraq was so does Mr Bennett feel we should spend another couple trillion dollars and thousands more lives. When does this Middle East Cop idea stop.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    First, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but that does not mean the US was responsible for removing him power.

    Second, Iraq is not necessarily better off. It is a far more violent and unstable society than before the invation. Religious fundamentalists have far more influence now than under the secular Baathist government.

    Third, the US invasion of Iraq destabilized the region, allowed Iran to gain influence and created a decade of violence and terror in Iraq, countless refugees flooding other nations.

    As a result of the US invasion, at least one hundred thousand Iraqis died. Would they have been alive today without our invasion? Probably. Certainly, the thousands of American troops killed in Iraq would be alive today. Bennett is arguing a counterfactual here - that Saddam was so bad he would have done horrible things without our invasion, ignoring the fact that without the invasion, other options might have been uncovered and pursued that would have resulted in Hussein leaving power without the deaths of a hundred thousand Iraqis and thousands of Americans.

  • Well.ok Lehi, UT
    March 25, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    I don't think Bush is a bad guy, I think he beleived he was doing what was right...but he was clearly wrong. After what we now know, can anyone honestly say if they were to do it all over again they would? Using Bennett's logic we should invade half of Africa, the Middle East and North Korea because of the evil dictators controling these areas.

  • Kim Cedar Park, Texas
    March 25, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    One of the biggest reasons not mentioned here for many of us who initially supported the invasion was the mistaken belief that the ouster of Saddam and the establishment of a viable democracy would set the stage for the spread of democracy in the most troubled region of the world. Although I have not been entirely disillusioned by the results, what we have seen so far does not justify the cost in lives and gdp. This is in addition to the poor preparation and execution of the after Saddam strategy. However, having said this, my conclusion may change again in another ten years if viable democracies do eventually take hold and the tyranny of dictatorships and theocracies diminished signifcantly. In addition, I believe our troops, who where poorly led initially, adapted in an unprecedented way and performed in an outstanding manner under very difficult circumstances.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 25, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    Those who supported it should have to pay for it. I would rather my tax dollars go to healthcare, education and scientific research.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 25, 2013 11:28 a.m.


  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    March 25, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    Robert Bennet's opinion echoes mine despite all the Pres Bush negative rhetoric and deceptive short liner insults used against him in tody's communicative world. Thank you Bennet for truth and clarity.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 25, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    1. Bush lied, people died.
    2. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11

    $2 TRILLION of unrestricted and un-funded spending left to the U.S. taxpayers.
    That Iraqi OIL isn't paying for any of it like he said.
    So Big Oil $$$ won going in and coming out of it.

    Until Republicans admit they made mistakes and followed a fool,
    they will continue to loose elections.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 25, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    Just when I was starting to like some of Robert Bennett’s comments and views, he reverts to the old republican mantra of thinking you can fool all of the people all of the time.

    First, he is ignoring the thousands of American and Iraqi dead who are definitely not better off. And the thousands of American and Iraqi families that are still suffering the loss of their kin. And the thousands of wounded and disfigured, along with their families.

    Staying with America, the price of fuel and everything that keys on it, is up because of the elimination of a world competitor of the oil companies. How many American families have been destroyed by the bad economy that resulted.

    How are the taxpayers being effected by the extravagant waste of a private enterprise army? Along with the other scams to provide a bonanza for unscrupulous American businessmen.

    Is al-Qaida really less of a threat today? Are there fewer number of Iraqi being killed on a daily basis? Is the prospects for peace better?

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    March 25, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    There is over 23,000 nuclear bombs in the world. I don't know how many bio. or chemical things there is. All I can do is turn it over to God. There won't be any one to save when the world is in a grave.