Carol, you're still trying to defend the indefensible aren't you? The Korean War was the result of an actual invasion that threatened to undo the fragile stability of the region and undo the gains paid for in American and allied blood during WWII. Sadaam Hussein wasn't invading anyone and wasn't even capable of it. You're reference to Jeanne Kirkpatrick is ironic since the chemical attacks on the Kurds which Bush apologists keep referring to occurred during the Reagan administration of which she was a part. He was just as brutal back then but since he was our ally and proxy against the Iranians nothing was said or done about it.Critics will claim that no gains could be worth the price we paid [in Iraq]-- over 4,400 lost lives and untold hundreds of billions of dollars. But we paid a far higher price in the Korean War (36,000 dead). Few would have thought in 1953 that this war, which ended with a deadlocked and ravaged peninsula, was a raging success. The outcome looks considerably better nearly six decades later, now that South Korea has become one of the most prosperous and freest countries in the world.
Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Are the people of Iraq better off now? There were no suicide bombings before we invaded and Al Qaeda had no presence in the country. The Chaldean Christian community which had been in Iraq from the earliest days has been forced to flee.
Is the region better off? No. Iraq is now under Shiite control as is Iran and this gives the Iranians more influence. Iranians have been able to use Iraqi airspace to supply the Assad regime in Syria, something that would not have been possible under Sadaam.