Was Iraq all for naught? No.

There's a genre of fiction called alternative or "what if" history. As in, what if Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee defeated the Union at the Battle of Gettysburg? Or, what if Hitler had not been born?

Or, what if the United States had not invaded Iraq?

That's a fair question, now that U.S. troops have withdrawn , prompting the question: "Was the Iraq War worth it?"

We well know about the horrible costs of the war: almost 4,500 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and more than $1 trillion spent. But while we've heard a lot about the cost side of this equation, we've heard not so much about the benefit side. It's as if there was no benefit.

And a good way to calculate the benefits is to ask: What if President George W. Bush and Congress had decided in 2003 not to attack the tyrannical and murderous regime of Saddam Hussein? With the support of much of the American public.

Saddam, always a destabilizing force in the Middle East, would still be terrorizing his people and his neighbors as he did when he invaded Kuwait. He would have continued to support terrorist activities. He would be in a nuclear arms race with his sworn enemy, Iran. Perhaps he would have renewed the decadelong war he had with Iran. Perhaps he would have been at war again with his own Kurds, gassing them once again. Sunni and Shiite fractures could have bled beyond Iraq, turning the entire Middle East into a sectarian battlefield.

The Iraq War, besides giving Iraqis a chance to live in freedom, broke an unbroken chain of hostile, anti-American dictatorships linking Syria, Iraq and Iran. And made a statement about America's willingness to use power in its own interests. Only the most naive or ideologically sightless would argue that this benefit does not advance American goals.

Continue reading in the Chicago Tribune

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I'll buy that there are tangible benefits to the U.S. engagement in Iraq. But they aren't worth the costs. Not even close.

  • Typical column - never able to make a reasonable argument.

    I gather that you would support keeping the troops in Iraq indefinitely despite that fact that the Iraq people and government want us out - and despite the fact that the withdrawal date was set by Bush - not Obama - and despite the fact that Obama won the election and had a mandate to get the troops out.

    Using your twisted logic, we should be in multiple wars right now.

    Your benefit calculation is very odd - it is based on supposition - not reality. You do not know what would have happened had we not invaded. There were revolutions in Libya and Egypt - with Syria and Iran on the brink. For all you know, there would have been a revolution in Iraq and they would have been better off in the absence of our intervention.

    Oh, and one more thing, while the Iraq war may have had popular appeal at the time, it was based on false assumptions. How popular would it have been if we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction?

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • google-site-verification: googlefdc32e3d5108044f.html
  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Monthly Archives

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement:
  • Fresh Chicago News