A tragic mistake: countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, thousands of Americans dead, a trillion dollars deeper in debt, and Iran far stronger. 

Ahhh, Jeff....drinking the tea again? We entered into the Iraq war on false premises. This statement is nonsense: "ten years ago the invasion of Iraq with the explicit purpose of overthrowing Saddam Hussein". If that statement is anywhere near true, why did the Bush administration tell lies to get us into that military adventure? This is the problem with you right wing nuts, you never ever admit a mistake. Iraq was a mistake. Want to know why we have a huge deficit and want to throw seniors, veterans and the poor under the bus now? Because we didn't have the $$$$ to spend on such a long, expensive and devastating war with regards to the cost in lives. On both sides. We never told the UN we wanted to overthrow Hussein. We told them Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was going to use them. What really transpired is that Bush/Cheney and the rest of the criminals running the country back then wanted to "avenge" and "right" the mistake of Bush the elder. When he failed to take out Hussein the first time. Please stop propagating lies and misinformation. I saw Colin Powell's speach to the U.N. and he never mentioned regime change. You are really reaching on this one. If we had a draft in place, Iraq never would have happened.  I bet you never served in the military Jeff. Or you might have a better idea of what it means to send young people to war. It should never be about regime change or policing the world, or imperialism. War should only be entered into when our security has been threatened in a real, substantiated way. Not with lies and deceipt.

Oh, I forgot: Iraq is a mess now. Just look at the terrorist activity within the past week. Or maybe you missed that fact too. We have left Iraq not too much better off than when we first got there. I wonder what the average Iraqi would think of your ridiculous editorial.

So you and Dick Cheney are the only two people in the world who think this way.

I recall Dick Cheney saying that a President shouldn't make decisions based on polls.  That's probably one of the only things I've ever agreed with him about.

The poll numbers regarding the Iraq invasion 10 years ago are irrelevant to Bush's decision to go to war - they reflect a population that had recently experienced a deadly attack on our own soil, and had been fed a diet of WMD-scare ever since. 

Bush was the decider - that's what he called himself.  He told us his management style was to delegate and trust those to whom he delegated.  He listened to what they had to say, rarely questioned them, and made his decisions quickly and moved on.  Of course, when you discourage open discussion and get rid of those who may offer a different view, it's easy to make quick decisions.

Bush's reasons for the war evolved over time.  Saddam conspired with the 9-11 terrorists, he had WMD and was planning to attack the US, Saddam was a bad guy who needed to go, it was our duty to spead Democracy.  Combine that with all the nonsense about how they'd welcome us and their oil would pay for things, the lack of planning for the takeover, the enormous cost of life, etc, and I don't see how anyone can say the war was worth it.

Bush, in his book, said he regretted not finding any WMDs in Iraq.  What a slap in the face to all those who were affected by that war.

I really think Americans would have continued to support the invasion of Iraq had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney handled things differently. The problem with a regime change is what type of government rises from the ashes of war. Plus, the weapons of evil were not present in Iraq and once the dust settled, it was all clear that we "broke" a country that was going to be difficult to "fix" with money--tons of it.

History will not be kind to the decision making process that led us into the war with Iraq.

Plots of reactions from knee- jerks who read no further than the headline, and I am sure they will continue.

It was not a trillion dollars it was TRILLIONS added to our debt without taxes to pay for it. No wait taxes were cut at the same time. Wait deficits are bad no only when it comes to doing good here at home. Sorry I am confused... Deficits are OK when it comes to fighting unnecessary wars. The money spent on education, unemployment, infrastructure is nothing compared to the vast amounts flushed down the toilet for Iraq and Afganistan or even the Billions just left on pallets in the middle of the desert. Yes it did happen. Fiscally responsible Republican is yet another oxymoron.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
—Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back, 1976

The reason for the final withdrawal of American troops was Iraq's refusal to agree to immunize American soldiers against criminal accusations for any violence committed. The refusal was a non-starter which made it impossible for America to remain. There is an old Irish saying, be care of what you ask for -- because you just might get it. Well, Iraq asked for it, and now we'll see what they get from it.

Jacoby's selective memory is always good for a hearty laugh. No mention of the Reagan administration selling weapons to the "reason the war was worth spending trillions we don't have"?

For the humor-impaired out there, that was bitter sarcasm as I remember the two people in my life who died over these lies.

Putting aside the discussion about Obama pulling our troops out, I agree with you 100% that it was the right thing to do for all of rhe reasons you stated. We didn't need a politician in the Oval Office at that moment in time; we needed a leader and statesman, who had the good of his country (and the world for that matter) foremeost in his mind, and George Bush WAS THAT MAN!!! And although I an a progressive, who worships at the altar of MSN, Mathews, Bashir, et all, I think they are all VERY SMALL for not having the guts to stand up and admit Bush did THE RIGHT THING. And I'll tell you something else, even with my liberal progressive leanings, I was damn glad it was George Bush, and not Al Gore, that was standing in that pile of rubble that used to be the Twin Towers, and took that bull horn from that fireman, to let the terrorists know they were going to hear from us REAL SOON!! On this matter, George Bush will be judged by history as a GREAT leader. And I really wish the weasel liberal commentators would shut up about this!!!

Are you kidding me? Worth it ? The public supported the war- based on LIES we were told by the Bush- Cheney administration ... Hubris is being repeated Friday night on MSNBC - you might want to watch it !

Jeff's column was very important.  He left out the exacting legal process the President went through to make sure there would never be any doubt about the legitimacy of the liberation.  It was approved by congress, it was approved by the UN, and it was justified by Saddam Hussein's failure to live up to his agreements which ended the first Iraq war.  But it is still a leap to state that it was worth it.  Yes, we liberated an oppressed people.  Yes, we now have a Democratic ally in the region.  But for all the blood and treasure it cost, I am hard pressed to say it was worth it.

I think the value to the left wing is immeasurable.  It gave them the short in the arm they would never get from saving whales or whining about "climate change".  It instilled the raw hatred that lurks inside them, and actually led to them rooting against America.  It led to our electing a truly unqualified celebrity to be president.  While I am sympathetic to the Bush Admin, whom I believe acted in good faith, I do not think this was good for our country as a whole.  But it did help the Iraqis, and the hate filled liberals who are now running the country.

Tell it to the 4,000+ Gold Star Mothers, Jacoby.  Who were told, like the rest of us, that their sons and daughters were going off to save us from WMD.

Mr.  Jacoby get off your partisan horse here for a minute.  You're insulting our intelligence.  The Iraq war was unequivocally the most onerous geopolitical action taken in our generation; both in cost of lives and money -- which will ultimately be in the neighborhood of 6 trillion dollars and is a significant reason for our nation's debt.  It cost thousands of unnecessary deaths of Americans, and left thousands of our soldiers medically disabled and still awaiting benefits that are mired in a backlog of red tape; not to mention the killing of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's that resulted from the violence.  It did little more than temporarily stabilize a region that we now see is experiencing sectarian violence on a pre-war level.  And it emboldened our enemies even more, creating a proliferation of terrorist organizations and activity leading into Afghanistan, another unnecessary action that has had the same result as the aforementioned.  And it was all done under the false pretense of alleged WMDs.  How can you say with any veracity that this war has been worth it? 

I honestly think that George Bush should be tried and convicted as a war criminal.  I believe there is a case to be made.  Cheney too. They should be treated humanely, but both should eventually swing at the end of a strong rope.  I actually don't think Bush ever had anything close to good intentions.  This was a colossal mistake and an enormous failure that God-willing, none of us will ever see again in or lifetimes.  It is sad to see propaganda like this printed.  I feel sorry for all of the Massachusetts families who lost their sons and daughters in this ridiculous endeavor and I pray they have the strength to live on knowing that their lives were lost in vain.  

The pen may not in fact be mightier than the sword but is sure is safer for the bearer.

Wow, horrendous even for this jerk..skips the well documented lies by Bush's neo-cons on WMD. Condi Rice's nuclear cloud she knew was a lie, Colin Powell selling his soul at the UN. And the ascendancy of Iran in the region, how's that working out.. When guys like Jacoby sign their sons up and get towelcome them home in a box I might give credence to their sincerity. This is just an Obama beat on , using the deaths of Americans as his vehicle.. Show a little respect for the folks who fought this was based on a lie. Better hey Ramcoby, Isreal will take you in their military, go hit the front lines butter butt.

We all wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein but this was not the reason we invaded Iraq and there were ways of doing the former without doing the latter. The Big Lie fed to the American Public and an all too compliant American press was that Saddam Hussein had WMD (hint,hint mushroom cloud making material) that was a direct threat to the USA. The Republican War Regime conflated this lie with another lie about Saddam's collaboration with Al Queda thus making a perfect fictional marriage between Terrorism and another 9/11 attack on US soil-this time with nuclear weapons. What a delicious recipe to garner public support for an unjustified war. Not only did the Republicans Regime send us to war on false premises they didn't pay for it and when the false premise of WMDs proved false they pivoted to mission creep on steroids and decided to transform Iraqi society into something it could never be - a multiethnic democracy and coherent nation. This "country" is as divided as it was before only without a dictator. Meanwhile we spend a few trillion and expended thousands of lives for no good reason. Also when Saddam used WMD on the Kurds in Halabja there was no Republican outcry against this mass murderer. In fact Republicans loved this guy as long as he was also killing Iranis. Little wonder that Iran distrusts the friend of their enemy helping to kill their people. It is the Fab Four of Bush, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld who should be brought to justice for their misdeeds.

Jeff, i guess you haven't bothered to fnd time to watch Rachel Maddow's 'Hubris'.  It's well more informed an truthful than this piece.  Your article reads like it was ghostwrittev by Sununu.

Like Afghanistan, the Iraq war is subject to a lot of distortion and outright lies. 

In Afghanistan 75 % of the casualties are directly a result of the Taliban atrocities. 

I am sure the 124,000 Iraquis deaths would show the same result. 

Some like to conflate the figures to imply that " we " did it. Please stop the lies. 

That doesnt count the hundreds of thousands that the Sadaam regime was responsible for prior to the war. 

Tolboy Jacoby conveniently left out the fact that 23 Dem senators and 166 dem reps voted against. Since polls justify action jeffas

91% of the public thinks that we need universal background checks but all repugs are against. What say you fatas?

“It freed Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to be more of a Shiite sectarian than he could have been with the US looking over his shoulder,”

I thought this was the democratic government the Iraqis elected?  This was the goal right? 

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/the_last_letter_20130318/#.UUjEK7NnIKM.facebook

OK, I can understand why editorial writers keep trying to put a positive spin on our various misadventures in these Islamic countries. I suppose it is a normal reaction in order to find some justification for all the deaths and horrible disfigurements suffered by our troops. But I beg you, would you please stop using the word "democracy" in the same sentance with the names of these Islamic theocracies. It really is insulting.

And if my memory servces me correcftly, all of you Liberals where arguing before the war that we were doing this to get the oil. I don't think we took one drop now did we. Soem of you same people now feel that we should get some oil revenues to pay for the debt. The fact is a deceased Iraqi dicator lied about his non existent WMD's in order to keep Iran at bay. With all of the world leaders, key DEMOCRATIC senators and congresmen all agreeing that was the case, based on flawed intelligence, you all still want someone to blame, the balme really goes to Saddam for all of this. In hind sight, we had flawed intelligence, and that blame does fall on the Bush administration but to assume that they made this up in order to go to war is ludacris. I give Bush credit that he has some balls to stand up and take a stand vs. Obama who seems content with failing ecomonic sanction and diplomatic approach to Iran. Just think, If Bill Clinton had the balls to strike UBL back in his administration, there may be two towers still standing and 3K+ people still alive today. And, I could take a bottle of water on a plane. Instead, he was worried about the politics if he did attack and miss. 

Jeff with an editorial such as this one, why would any reasonable thinking person ever want to read another word of the irrational right wing trash that comes out of your mind?

Shame on you for your revisionist history!

jacoby....just seeing the byline to this stupid article jacked up my bp. This exercise by bush, cheyney and others was...at the very, very least.....a blight on what this country stands for. It set a precedent for our foreign policy that may have been used again in Iran if romney had been elected. This is not saying that we should still speak softly but carry a big stick because there are those out there who have no qualms about taking down our country. Protecting the homeland should be our #1 priority.

My real gripe with you jacoby is your callous ignorance of the consequences of this invasion....our soldiers. I don't believe I have to go over what happened and continues to happen to those of us who fought in Vietnam. It has been a life long trudge to carry the memories of that war....and that is for those of us who did not come back missing limbs....who had to reintegrate back into society with minimal assistance from the VA at that time.

Most of us came back with degrees of PTSD that we carry with us 24/7. However, Vietnam helped to start to understand PTSD, to make the VA a bit more accountable and the best of all....to recognize those of the next generation who fight our wars as real Americans who make the sacrifice to protect our country.

jacoby....you never served. You should think twice about the consequences of war and the sometime lapse in patriotic fervor that can lead us there.

Please take Jacoby's keyboard away from him.

Jeff Jacoby, minion of the blood gargling psychopath Rumsfeld.  Chicken-hawks all!

OMG. Talk about misperception and denial of reality!

The real reason for this war, and for the destruction and tragedy it caused and will continue to engender for us and our children long into the future, is our own inability and shortcomings in the area of being able to discriminate the real differences between what we only "think" and what is actually real.

We need leaders and a population which can tell the difference. Our invasion of Iraq is an object lesson in how many people could not, and what the costs of that are, to us, and to others.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and even Colin Powell could not. Nor could those who voted them into office, and supported them once there. Nor could even most of the Democrats who opposed them (including such leaders as J. Kerry & H. Cllinton).

A critical part of growing up psychologically has to do with developing a clear sense of boundaries between what we merely think (or fear) subjectively, and separating out what the reality is. When we can't do this, we end up being foolish. And incompetent in a fundamental way. And enormously destructive, when we ride our unchecked fears and fantasies into war. We become victims of ourselves, and of our own ignorance and even childlike immaturity.

Going forward, we need to ask ourselves more clearly: What's real? And who are the people we know can tell the difference? 

Obviously, many people can't. Especially many who want to be in charge, but who don't know what they are doing. 

In the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, Naval War College professor of national security affairs Stephen Knott also sought to remind readers of a few truths that nicely complement Rep. Cotton’s. Professor Knott’s column is behind the Journal’s subscription paywall. Here it is:

At 5:34 a.m. on March 20, 2003, American, British and other allied forces invaded Iraq. One of the most divisive conflicts in the nation’s history would soon be labeled “Bush’s War.”

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime became official U.S. policy in 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act—a bill passed 360-38 by the House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. The law called for training and equipping Iraqi dissidents to overthrow Saddam and suggested that the United Nations establish a war-crimes tribunal for the dictator and his lieutenants.

The legislation was partly the result of frustration over the undeclared and relatively unheralded “No-Fly Zone War” that had been waged since 1991. Saddam’s military repeatedly fired on U.S. and allied aircraft that were attempting to prevent his regime from destroying Iraqi opposition forces in northern and southern Iraq.

According to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Hugh Shelton, in 1997 a key member of President Bill Clinton’s cabinet (thought by most observers to have been Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) asked Gen. Shelton whether he could arrange for a U.S. aircraft to fly slowly and low enough that it would be shot down, thereby paving the way for an American effort to topple Saddam. Kenneth Pollack, a member of Mr. Clinton’s National Security Council staff, would later write in 2002 that it was a question of “not whether but when” the U.S. would invade Iraq. He wrote that the threat presented by Saddam was “no less pressing than those we faced in 1941.”

Radicalized by the events of 9/11, George W. Bush gradually concluded that a regime that had used chemical weapons against its own people and poison gas against Iran, invaded Iran and Kuwait, harbored some of the world’s most notorious terrorists, made lucrative payments to the families of suicide bombers, fired on American aircraft almost daily, and defied years of U.N. resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction was a problem. The former chief U.N. weapons inspector, an Australian named Richard Butler, testified in July 2002 that “it is essential to recognize that the claim made by Saddam’s representatives, that Iraq has no WMD, is false.”

In the U.S., there was a bipartisan consensus that Saddam possessed and continued to develop WMD. Former Vice President Al Gore noted in September 2002 that Saddam had “stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton observed that Saddam hoped to increase his supply of chemical and biological weapons and to “develop nuclear weapons.” Then-Sen. John Kerry claimed that “a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his [Saddam's] hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Even those opposed to using force against Iraq acknowledged that, as then-Sen. Edward Kennedy put it, “we have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing” WMD. When it came time to vote on the authorization for the use of force against Iraq, 81 Democrats in the House voted yes, joined by 29 Democrats in the Senate, including the party’s 2004 standard bearers, John Kerry and John Edwards, plus Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Sen. Joe Biden, Mrs. Clinton, and Sens. Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Chris Dodd and Jay Rockefeller. The latter, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, claimed that Saddam would “likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.”

Support for the war extended far beyond Capitol Hill. In March 2003, a Pew Research Center poll indicated that 72% of the American public supported President Bush’s decision to use force.

If Mr. Bush “lied,” as the common accusation has it, then so did many prominent Democrats—and so did the French, whose foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, claimed in February 2003 that “regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of [Iraq's] capacity to produce VX and yperite [mustard gas]; in the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin.” Germany’s intelligence chief August Hanning noted in March 2002 that “it is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years.”

According to interrogations conducted after the invasion, Saddam’s own generals believed that he had WMD and expected him to use these weapons as the invasion force neared Baghdad.

The war in Iraq was authorized by a bipartisan congressional coalition, supported by prominent media voices and backed by the public. Yet on its 10th anniversary Americans will be told of the Bush administration’s duplicity in leading us into the conflict. Many members of the bipartisan coalition that committed the U.S. to invade Iraq 10 years ago have long since washed their hands of their share of responsibility.

We owe it to history—and, more important, to all those who died—to recognize that this wasn’t Bush’s war, it was America’s war.

Source: wsj

Jeff - why didn't you volunteer for it ? - feet speak louder than words

The revisionist are coming out to roost. Thousands of American brave soldier lives (4000), hundreds of thouands of casualities.....no WMDs...(but the world was in "grave" danger), ex-CIA operatives coming forth about no Al-Queda connection-(either half the CIA-credible, hard working heroic people are all lying, or Dick Cheney is lying-hmmm)....Donald Rumsfeld is on the record as saying they knew exactly where WMDs were-exactly was the word used Jeff...billions and billions of taxpayers money spent yesterday, today, and tomorrow..conservative estimates say this war will cost America billions annually for years, just in helping Iraqi vets alone....high suicide rates for serving Iraqi vets...unbridled corruption/war profiteering...zero 9/11 connection, especially considering 95% of the terrorists we now know from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and proof of operation in Iraq is vague if even in existance....could go on and on-not even close

Considering the Republican leadership built Saddam Hussain in the 80s (against Iran-hows the picture of Rumsfeld and Hussain doing?), to have the same ideologues preach about the virtue of his uprooting/war is pathetic. 

The 51rst state of delusion is alive and well.

jacoby needs to straighten up and get his head out in the sunshine.

70% per cent of the people supported the war in Iraq? You mean after they were lied to about supposed WMD in Iraq, and oied to about Iraq supposed connection to Al Queda (none were there until after the U.S. invaded!). This article is junk.

As far as the Pentagon was concerned, an overthrow of Saddam Hussein would result in civil war and a long period of instability. Guess what? They were right. We can argue after the fact about what should have happened and when, but that is pointless. In order to effectively occupy and rebuild a country post invasion the desired ratio of occupying troops to local population is one to fifty. We didn't have that, and we don't have that. Jacoby can make any argument he wants, but even if he were correct he has neither the credentials nor the analytical skill set necessary to back up his claim.

Even if we look at the Iraq War your way, it still doesn't take into account the time and cost.  What are we supposed to do, keep our troops there indefinitely until the Sunnis and Shiites work it out? There was no exit plan then, and there is no answer now.  Yet when the few people brought up the idea of an exit plan in 2003, they were ridiculed and laughed at.  Face it, everyone expected the war to be like Gulf War I.  We go in, do what we have to do, and get out, and if the war had ended at "Mission Accomplished", then it would have been considered a success. Out of all the justifications the Bush regime tried to sell us on, not once did anyone say "This could take decades, there could be many lives lost, and the cost will be high, but we must make the sacrifice....".  9/11 got us energized to kick some a** and take some names. We wanted war, but we had forgotten what war was all about.  We were not ready to make that sacrifice.  You can bring up the surge all you want, but it was already a failure at that point. If it wasn't going to happen in a short amount of time, with little cost, then it was destined to fail.

Jacoby is a fiscal conservative, unless the money is spent killing Arabs.

Jeff, take a look at today's article titled, "10 years after US-led invasion, peace evades Iraq." Interesting excerpts:

‘Poverty, hunger, pain,’’ said their mother, Layla Alwain, ticking off the features of her life. ‘‘We’ve got nothing, and it’s getting worse and worse. Our country is not developing like others.’’

But with violence so familiar, attacks can seem to barely disturb the broader contours of daily life for those not directly affected.

In the traffic snarl outside the checkpoint entrance to New Baghdad, campaign posters for coming elections hang like taunts of the democracy that cannot seem to take hold here.

This is some nonsense.

Definition of "delusional" (psychiatry): 

"A belief held in the face of evidence to the contray, that is resistant to all reason."

Now the lefties know what happened and why. A good synopsis.

"Well, if you were like the great majority of Americans — you did. In February and March 2003, Newsweek’s polls showed 70 percent of the public in favor of military action against Iraq..."

This is a completely specious argument.  Support on the basis of willfully distorted information, fear-mongering, and a source named "Curveball" hardly consitutes informed consent, Jeff.   

This from today's Economist: "Anniversary of a Mass Delusion."  (Curious to see they used same adjective I chose above to comment on Jeff's article).  Here's a summary statement of the net result of our investment in Iraq.  The CAPS are mine:

"Thousands of Iraqi soldiers died as well, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died in the resulting civil war, most killed by the Iraqi militias who emerged in the power vacuum the US invasion created, but many killed by US armed forces themselves. IN THE NAME OF PRE-EMPTING A NON-EXISTENT THREAT, America killed tens of thousands of people and turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism. And we spent a trillion dollars to do it."

Robert McNamara had the moral courage to confront and admit his mistakes in Vietnam.  It will be interesting to see if George Bush can, too. 

Really, Jeffy? Really?  Are you speaking as a veteran?  Tell us about your personal battelfield experience. Do you really think that the 1 trillion dollars spent was a good investment? Are you getting paid diredtly by Halliburton, or under the table? Are you really that stupid, or are you, once again, just lying? You are disgusting.

Just as I would like to see more conservative editorial pages featuring an occasional column from a progressive columnist, I like the idea of a paper with a largely liberal editorial page, such as the Boston Globe, also giving space to a sensible conservative columnist. But Jeff Jacoby has proven time and again that he is no such columnist. This piece is the latest in which he has promoted factually discredited narratives, such as the reasons for invading Iraq and the state of that nation today. His insensitivity in weighing the cost--in lives, in money, in our reputation as a nation, and in our faith in our leaders--against the perceived benefits--the removal of a single tyrant, and the alleged freedom of the Iraqi people, though he fails to mention all the ill consequences that have befallen the Iraqi people--is less admonishable than his refusal to acknowledge the facts about the march to war ten years ago. It is long since time that the Globe replace Mr. Jacoby's column with that of someone more reasonable and insightful; someone whose columns will be grounded in both a conservative perspective and reality.

You lose anybody over there, crackpot? I'd hate to see the Globe fold, but one benefit would be that Jacoby would be out of work.

This tendentious column ignores a host of facts.  Among them:

- The massive Iraqi death toll.

- The huge toll in American lives, and lots of "invisible losses", including combat wounds and PTSD that might be related to the record military suicide rate.

- Iraq today is hardly a Western democracy.  Just today, the Globe reports that a bomb killed 65 people.  Nobody knows when things will get better.  

- The spectacular incompetence of the Bush administration's occupation policies.

- Iraq's goverment may not be friendly to us.  Already, it seems to be aligning more with Iran.

- The case for an Iraqi nuclear program was riddled with holes, which were hidden from Americans. 

Jacoby notes that American support for the war was high, but he fails to see that officials who publicly opposed the war were often attacked and vilified.  Consider what happened to people like Eric Shinseki and Valerie Plame, who warned that the cost of the war would be far higher than Bush was promising and that the WMD case was weak, respectively.  They were attacked and their careers were destroyed.  If people like Shinseki had been allowed to speak, Americans might have had a very different view of the war.  

It's true that the war accomplished some good things: Saddam was indeed terrible, and the prewar sanctions regime had a high human cost as well.  But no serious reckoning with the war can ignore the facts mentioned above (plus many others), as this column does.  Personally, I think the war was a terrible mistake and a tragedy.  We have to make the best of things now, but we also have to learn from this debacle.

Wow. Mr. Jacoby, I hope you read these comments with an open mind and an open heart because this column is so wrong on so many levels that I wonder that the Globe continues to employ you. I know the paper needs its token right-winger for “balance,” but in this great city there has to be a conservative who is both a deep thinker and an articulate voice. Unfortunately, you are neither.  

Somebody go over to Jacoby's house and check on him, please. I think he is off his meds again.

I'd hate to see the Globe fold, but one benefit would be that Jacoby would be out of work.

And I wholeheartedly agree with the poster who argues for War Crimes trials for Bush and Cheney. I don't think Cheney (or, probably, Bush) ever believed that Saddam had WMD's, or planned to attack the U.S.

And Holder and Obama should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice- for not pursuing charges against the prior administration.

Jacoby's idea inventory has been nearly empty for years.  With this distorted nonsense, he's running a hefty negative balance.  Surely, the Globe could find a more rational conservative op-ed columnist than this clueless clown.

Your dumber than I thought!

Delusional noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\   1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded   2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated        b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

Hi Jeff - You should have written this article on April Fool's Day. Tell the war was worth it to thousands of families, like mine, who lost loved ones. Tell it to the 50,000 families who have to live with taken limbs and confused minds, tell it to the 18 veteran suicides each day affecting families, tell it to the 200,000 dead Iraqi civilians, tell it to all Americans who are sufferring through a crushed economy due to two wars not budgeted. But, maybe you are rich and have a very short memory, so this will not affect you,and please don't forget that the initial reason for Iraq was to find WMD that were aimed at the U.S., not to "rid us of a genocidal maniac" as you and the right wing neo-cons are now attempting to re-write history with this lame excuse. Hussein was controlled at the time by a rigid no-fly zone and had an on-going war with Iran. Are we better off today, most will respond with a resounding no. Please stick to reporting, at least you will have to rely on facts, because your opinion pieces sound like a shrill of the neo-con war hawks. Some of us, especially those who have given personally, have a very long memory and will not allow you to re-write history. Unless, this is an April Fools joke, all be it in bad taste.

sometimes i wonder if the left even remembers or cares about 9/11

Jeff,

I agree with you 100% but God help you for making your case in this rag, the local moonbats are going to be flying off the ceiling over your affrontery!

As usual you can always count on Jeff Jacoby to say "down" when everyone is saying "up", "white" when everyone is saying "black", etc. This doesn't always make him wrong but in this case he is so wrong that it is almost laughable. He may be right when he says that support for the war was very high back in 2003. Part of the reason for that is that no one had a real stake in whether it happened or not and patriotic fervor was running high. There was no protest movement because there was no draft so for almost all of us we did not have to worry about fighting ourselves or sending our kids to fight. To this day the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much an afterthought for most Americans. The question I always thing of when it comes to going to war is whether I would be willing to die or be willing to sacrifice my child in the cause of the war. WWII was pretty clear that much was on the line and that the sacrifice was justified. But Iraq (and Afghanistan), no f'ing way. I ask Jeff Jacoby whether he would be willing to fight or send his darling boy over there to die? I doubt it especially given when he was probably of age he never volunteered to serve. I say this as a man who volunteered to serve at the height of Viet Nam. Perhaps Jeff, like Dick Cheney, was too busy to serve his country in the military. It's easy to be in favor of something when you don't have to take any responsibility for what happens.

No one listened. Senator Byrd's anti-war speach in 2003.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWfawiufK0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzlLU9Uxvdc

Jeff, maybe you would be of a different mind if you left two legs or eyes behind.

Ahh Jeff. The only reason that you think like you do is because of Israel. Well Israel is part of the problem even though you will never think so because you are so vastly superior to the rest of us.

Fire Jacoby ! Even opinion pieces shuld rely on facts and not be allowed to re-write history. This opinion is wrong on so many leves. Jacoby shows his true right-wing neo-con beliefs. I hope the Globe is not going for "fair and balanced" as we all know where that got us. Fire Jacoby for his lies and his re-write of history. He should be accountable to the facts, even in an opinion piece. Shame on the Globe Editorial Board.

Today's toll from Iraq sectarian violence 65 dead, 260 wounded. Gee, if only President Obama kept a huge military force there and kept dumping billions of dollars into the US Military Industrial complex and dropping sacks of US dollars out of planes over Iraq, I'm sure it would be a vitrual Utopia by now.

Congratulations, Mr Jacoby! Your worst piece......ever! Utter nonsense and lies! You'll have your work cut out to create a bigger pile of garbage than this sorry excuse for commentary.

Typical for this columnist to twist the facts to arrive at a far flung opinion. This generation's Vietnam is more likely going down as a mistake of major proportions. I cannot see the Bush/Cheney team looking too favorable in the public eye now or in the future. Taking out a dictator on false premises does little to resolve the bigger problems caused by Bush/Cheney in the Middle East. We lost countless American lives in Iraq and billions of dollars wasted, but this columnist sees a silver lining in a failed Republican foreign policy initiative. It is time for this columnist to come to the realization that even conservative politicians can make mistakes!!

Whether the war is justified or not can be endlessly debated.  Since the end of the Viet Nam war, I feel that this country goes into wars without any or very little public debate.  With our so-called volunteer military and a lot of impressive technology, leaders can conduct wars mostly without public opposition.

If there was some kind of fair draft and automatic tax increases to make all of us feel some of the pain of going to war, our involvement in foriegn wars would be minimal.

Laughing at Jeff, crying for the lost and ruined American lives. Bush killed more Americans than Bin laden.

"Jeff"  just can't seem to admit to himself that the war was a FUBAR.  Built on whichever you wish to call it, bad intelligence or bad faith.  Take your pick.  I love the folks who justify it by saying Bush took all the legal steps to justify the nonsense.  Okay it was a legal FUBAR. 

Just once in awhile I would like to see folks deal with the truth.  The war was a nightmare created by the neo-cons.  Obama is stretching Presidential authority and risking future actions by others through the drone policy.  But the zealots on the right will support the Iraqi debacle until the end and those on the left will defend a drone policy that reeks.

Of course we can all fall back on the old standby by the threat of Islamism.  In my 65 years we always find something to be threatened by, communism, fascism, Islamism, socialism, pick an ism pick an enemy.  It keeps the DOD busy.  My kingdom for an Ike, a miliary man who didn't quite trust the establishment. 

Please keep in mind during this discussion, that it was Reagan, Rumsfeld, and Cheney during the 1980 decade of Reagan years that built up Hussein and his regime. This brings up the question why the same people went after what they had built up. Were they attempting to cover up their mistakes by altering history in order to enhance their legacy for personal profit, or just ashamed.

a consequence jacoby never looked at....yeah...tell this soldier the war was worth it....same same to all of you with your fake, blow dry hubris..

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/the_last_letter_20130318/

I think you snuck an awfully heavy thumb on that balance.  

One would hope that their leaders would show some thoughfulness and leadership rather than running to be in front of a vigilante mob.  Making up stories about WMD and allowing, when not actively promoting, rumors of connection with 9/11 should solidly cement Bush the younger's positioin as one of the worst presidents ever.  

This might be a new low, even for you, Mr. Jacoby.

NO NO NO!!!!! This is simply irresponsible crazy talk and one of the most infuriating and idiotic pieces of....er....revisionist history I've seen in a LONG time.  What next? A discussion on how we won in Vietnam?

Mr.Jacoby was safely ensonced in his cubicle at the Globe these past ten years. Did he serve? This column is disgraceful and could have been written for him by Karl Rove for all it reveals.

Jacoby once again goes off into that alternative universe he inhabits where wrong can be transformed into right with a novelist's creativity.

The Democrats voted for it because they believed that a President would not be liying about such a serious matter

The miltary operations were a show of what we did right;The peace keeping nation and building is what we did wrong.  I base this opinion  on what I witnessed while I was in Iraq.

Jeff,

On balance, the Iraq war was worth it?  Easy for you to say, because you didn't have to go there and get killed or simply maimed by Iraqi insurgents or suffer in neglect with PTSD at Walter Reed Hospital, like thousands of our valiant military.  Easy for you to say, because not much of the trillions spent on Iraq came out of your pocket.  But why not look around you at the eroded infrastructure in this country, and the huge mountain of national debt amassed in this country from the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, enough that we can't afford to fix our own country?

And, NO!  I was not one of the people who favored invading Iraq.  I was not suckered in by the Cheney-Rumsfeld con job, as many others were.  I saw with clear eyes that the invasion of Iraq was a charade.  Pity that so many others did not.

The status quo with Saddam Hussein may well have been worse for Iraq and Iraqis, but the United States would be in a much better place today without its invasion and occupation of Iraq.

You should be ashamed of yourself for whitewashing yet another sorry episode in this country's seemingly endless series of needless military interventions.

Ben Myers
Harvard, MA

Saddam Al Qaeda links:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/saddam_and_alqaeda_1.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/14/saddam-supported-at-least-two-al-qaeda-groups-pentagon/

http://www.amazon.com/The-Connection-Collaboration-Hussein-Endangered/dp/0060746734

Jacoby doesn't believe what he writes. He just doesn't. The whole thing is just silly. I know read his columns only for laughs. I used to get mad at his views, until I realized that his columns are designed solely to stir people up. Don't buy into it. 

It is so sad that few commentors mention the destruction of so many American lives and families because of the Iraq war. Remember how communities held fund raisers to buy flak jackets for their soldiers? Remember Rumsfeld saying "you go to war with the army you have." 4488 Americans are dead. Possibly thousands more suffer from wounds of the body and the mind. Suicides rates have risen dramatically since the Iraq war started. Lost limbs, eyes, PTSD, tramatic brain injury. The list goes on and on. Jacoby doesn't mention it, Cheney doesn't mention it. That's how much they care.

We forget that Saddam Hussain served a useful role as a bulwark against Iran. Removing that hostile neighbor freed up Iran for mischief elsewhere, and in Iraq directly with the Shiite majority. Too bad Bush decided to go after the member of his Axis of Evil that DIDN'T have WMD's.

I see the title of this ridiculous re-write of history has changed. But still nonsense no matter the title. The Iraq war was a terrible waste of life and resources. This headline from today's Globe says how much good it did: "BAGHDAD — Iraq closed a painful decade just as it began: with explosions reverberating around the capital." 

I certainly was not fooled in the run-up to the war on Iraq. The news about the questionable assumptions being made by Bush and his Cabinet was out there if you looked for it at the time. If Jeff Jacoby wants to justify his approach to the war by saying that everyone was for it before they were against it, well he can try but that doesn't change the facts that it has been a war with terrible consequences for Iraq, American soldiers, and our budget. Here is a MUCH more realistic view on the situation: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/19/the_first_step . Jacoby can't hope to provide analysis this insightful, so he should stop trying.

What uniform has Jeff Jacoby worn? He sounds like a classic chicken-hawk; every war is a good one as long as "I" don't have to fight it (Bush, Cheney, Rimsfeld, Rice, Wolfewitz, Perle and Jacoby). The current example is Mitt Romey who is all for clobbering Iran but neither his grandfather, father, himself, or his 5 sons ever wore the uniform.

Wrong again, Jeff. The invasion and the war were NOT worth it. Not one bit.

You say that "everyone knew" and that Democrats supported it too. And yet you fail to mention that the intelligence was fixed - that Dick Cheney wanted this war and fixed the intelligence to make people believe what he wanted them to believe. In short, HE LIED. He even got Colin Powell, before then a fine upstanding man, to lie for him in front of the UN. Colin Powell has said he was used.

Further, Jeff, do you really thing all the peole who lost, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, friends, or whose loved ones came home maimed either physically, mentally, or both, think it was worth it? Do you think the soldiers who were lied to and were sent to an immoral war against their will (they thought they were going to find bin Laden), and who came home forever alteres by the hell that is war think it was worth it? Really? 5000+ Americans had to die for the Bush Adminstration's wet dream of stealing Saddam's oil. Yes, oil. THAT is what we really went for - not because Saddam was a tyrant (REmember that the original mission name was Operation Iraqi Liberation - O.I.L.). Good Lord man, Saddam may have been a tyrant, but it was fine with Cheney, Rummy and the Bush family as long as he did what we wanted. The minute he did not he became enemy #1. 

You really think it was worth putting out nation in massive debt? You really think it was worth the blood and treasure? Spoken like a true Republican chickenhawk, a man who has never put on a uniform, or had to defend his country, but let others do the dirty work. Like most Republicans, you never served. Serving wasn't convenient (Cheney had "other things to do," Rush Limbaugh had a boil on his posterior - what was YOUR exuse?).

Please stop saying it was worth it. Goddam it man, we lost LIVES. Americans were maimed and killed! That means nothing to you. 

We got rid of a tyrant. Good for you. But what a whitewash. Fact is, we destroyed a country, its vast collection of antiquities, stole their oil, decimated their infrastructure, sickened its people with our armaments, and turnd a secular nation into an Islamic theocracy, albeit one with a multi-billion-dollar US embassy.

I'm so sick of you, your rantings and the fact that you are WRONG about everything. I'm certainly sick of the Republican attitude that spends our lives and treasure to make the rich richer at the expense of the rest of Americans. I'd love to tell you what I really think of you, but I would be banned from this site. 

I'd prefer it if you would just go away. But that will never happen because the Globe, like so many other media outlets today, feels it has to ignore the truth in order to be "fair and balanced" to a side of this nation who wallows in nothing but ignorance.

You are an ignorant excuse for a human being.

I hadn't realized Jacoby shifted jobs from columnist to fiction author.

I assume you are no fan of Moveon.org, but I hope you will be intellectually honest enough to read the open letter published there yesterday in light of your column. http://front.moveon.org/dying-veteran-writes-on-behalf-of-thousands-as-he-tears-into-bush-and-cheney-in-an-open-letter/. It probably won't change your mind, but it does offer a different perspective that I hope you'll consider.

Mr. Jacoby asserts that that the Iraq war was supported by 70% of Americans going in. That made me wonder which war he is talking about?  The one that ”could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months”?, where American troops would be “welcomed as liberators”? that would cost “at most 50 to 60 billion dollars”, that a plan to pay for it was not necessary since the war would “pay for itself” through Iraqi oil revenues? and anyway "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"?where evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda was “overwhelming”? where there was  “no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” and that Donald Rumsfeld knew exactly “where they are”?  

Mr. Jacoby is flat out wrong when he states that “virtually everyone” believed WMD’s would be found. Some of us were around then and remember the voices from each group he mentions loudly protesting the lack of evidence. But we were asked to trust.

We now look back on the actual war after ten years, knowing that each of those assertions has been proved wrong. The estimated cost of this war is now in the trillions, not billions of dollars. The president cut taxes rather than levy a war tax, borrowing to fund it, never telling us that our future was being used as collateral, that the war would eventually be paid for by cuts to social services. We leave behind the sacrifice of 4,486 American service men and women who gave their lives, hundreds of thousands more with traumatic brain injuries, amputations, and post traumatic stress disorders, who will struggle every day for the rest of their lives, and bereft families left in the wake. How many would have supported the first version had they known it was more wishful thinking than fact?

Was it worth it? Maybe that should be asked of the armchair warriors, like Mr. Jacoby, who beat the drum with such confidence but let others do the heavy lifting. What did they sacrifice, and do they believe there effort was "worth it" given the magnitude of the threat?