Iraq: Three Years Later

This coming Monday will mark three years since the U.S. invasion of Iraq began. Iraq's new Parliament held its first session on Thursday and heliborne U.S. and Iraqi troops pressed their sweep through a 100-square-mile swath of central Iraq on Friday in a bid to break up a center of insurgent resistance, the U.S. military said. Read more.

In retrospect, do you think invading Iraq three years ago was the right choice for the United States?

E-mail us at and jump into the debate.

Check out what FOX Fans are saying:

"Invade? Hell no! We could have given each adult Iraqi $16 million cash, a new flat screen TV with dish, and an American car for less money, and less lives, than Bush's blunder cost." — M. (Rochester, MI)

"Without question. The world could not allow a madman to kill people, including his own, at will. No one said it would be easy. However, freedom has never come easy. If we think Iraq is tough, let us not forget the tough battles of World War II, when our servicemen couldn't even sleep. We lost thousands of good men. Iraq is small in comparison. However, every life is precious. Let us not forget that!" — Charles (Lenoir, NC)

"Although I voted for President Bush, in both presidential elections, and continue to support him and our troops presently fighting in Iraq, I have never fully understood why we went there. I felt there was a determination on the part of the Bush administration to go to war despite anything the Iraq government might do to prevent it. Whatever the reason may be, we are at war. I truly believe our troops and allies." — Gary

"America has a choice. We can either return to the isolationist policies of the 1800's, or we can aggressively attack any potential threat to our way of life. And I definitely prefer the latter. Iraq may not have been the best target for this strike, but it wasn't the worst. Bush may not be the best president for the job, but he's better than the vast majority of his detractors. Americans must understand that this effort will probably take at least ten, maybe 20, years of commitment and billions more dollars to work. If we don't have the resolve to finish the job then we'll be worse off than if we had never even tried." — John (USAF)

"No, I think Iraq should have been invaded a long time ago. When we beat them the first time THEY surrendered. The first time they broke the deal we should have defeated them. People need to get off the president's back because he didn't start it, but he will be the one to finish it." — John (MD)

"Yes, and Iran should be next!" — Pat

"Absolutely not!" — Bill

"Not only was invading Iraq the right thing to do, it was the only thing we could do. I am one of those who are convinced that intelligence was NOT wrong and that there were WMD in Iraq. Most Americans, including Democrat politicians, were all jumping on the bandwagon three years ago. However, the politicians are now more interested in making political hay than they are at seeing the war through to its logical conclusion — victory. It's reminiscent of their actions during Vietnam." — Joe (Las Cruces, NM)

"No, we should not have started the war in Iraq. President Bush should have listened to the U.N. Germany and France were right." — Mona

"Yes, very smart. Iraq is a critical geographical location, and whether people accept it or not, we will be there forever. We still have bases in Germany and a base in Iraq — which borders Iran and Syria — is pivotal. However, I do not think we should have taken up this massive rebuilding project. Our job was to eliminate the threat, not make every Iraqi live the American dream at a cost to us." — James (Spokane, WA)

"Absolutely wrong decision based on lies." — George

"No, and I didn't think it was a good idea back then either." — Colleen (Memphis, TN)

"Yes, it was the right thing to do, but, we haven’t fought it the right way. Instead of trying to conduct a politically correct war we should have launched an all-out offensive and persevered until we had complete victory." — Joanne

"Absolutely! If not, we would most likely be fighting it here in a very different way. Americans would be getting blown up with car and roadside bombs." — Keith

"Yes, It was the right thing to do. The problem is that we stopped at Iraq. We should have gone right on into Iran and Syria, and clamped down hard. Political correctness and the liberal bed wetters that are pushing the PC agenda are this country's most dangerous enemies." — John

"Definitely not. Bad MOVE! Even the justification for the war was based on false or inaccurate information. Can anyone tell me what has gone right? The biggest fallout from all this is TRUTH. We must try to get ourselves back there, because ignoring it gets us into situations like the Iraq war. History most likely will prove how horrible a decision it was to go to war with Iraq. We have not endured all the pain and suffering we will inevitably bear because of it." — Richard

"Absolutely! The war in Iraq has been worth it. If we had not ousted Saddam and his government they would still be shooting at our planes in the 'No-Fly Zones.' They would still be defying U.N. inspections and sanctions. They would still be supporting Hamas and other terrorists. They would still be harboring Abu Musab al Zarqawi and his terrorist training camp at Ansar al-Islam and he would still be teaching al Qaeda terrorists how to make Ricin and explosives. Since Saddam would by now think that he had won the political war with America and the U.N., he would try to reinstate his WMD program and bring back the stockpiles he sent to Syria." — Bob (Fallbrook, CA)

"Let's see, was it the correct choice? Huge loss of life and billions in damage caused by Usama bin Laden. Instead of using the quarter million troops to hunt him down, we invade an easy alternate source of entertainment. Well, they thought it would be easy, now the body count for our troops approaches the number of the World Trade Center dead. Because he didn't tell his advisors they were wrong and that we should go after bin Laden, President Bush, representing the United States, made a bad choice." — James

"Absolutely! Just imagining his reign extending through his two sons for decades more sends shivers down my spine!" — Jan

"At the time it was the right thing to do. Our tactics on fighting these terrorists must change. We have got to get out of the convoy mindset and get on the ground and find the terrorists and kill them. This idea of riding down the street and getting blown up by a roadside bomb is getting old. This is a WAR — we are acting like we must remain PC — for whom, I don’t know!" — Michael (Colorado Springs, CO)

"In retrospect, nothing! I thought it was a stupid idea then and I certainly haven't seen anything that would change my opinion." — John (Little Rock, AR)

"Absolutely, invading Iraq was our only alternative, considering the information (true or false) that we ALL had at that time." — Janet (Cincinnati, Ohio)

"Given that we never found any WMD — which was supposedly the reason for invading Iraq — it was not the right choice for the U.S. However, if you consider Saddam Hussein's connection with bin Laden and other terrorists, via the U.N. oil-for-food scandal, perhaps it was. From a humanitarian perspective, it was the right thing to do because of Hussein's violent, genocidal dictatorship. It must be said that helping a Third World country toward democracy can never be viewed as an easy task and I applaud our wonderful military personnel for carrying out the orders of the commander in chief." — Geneva (Las Vegas, NV)

"I think it was the right thing to do. Just imagine what Hussein would be doing right now against the U.S. and Israel. The same thing that Iran is thinking of doing." — Georgette (Renton, WA)

"I didn't think it was a good decision when we first invaded, thus looking at the invasion retrospectively, it went from bad idea to terrible idea. Bush may not have lied, but he certainly ignored evidence to the contrary, which may have prevented this mess." — Zachary (New York, NY)

"Yes, it was the right thing to do! How many more innocent people would have died at the hands of Saddam? It was only a matter of time before he decided to let deadly chemicals loose across America. If we don't finish what we started, our brave men that died will have done so in vain." — Danny (Vernon, TX)

"No 'retrospect' about it; I was opposed to the Iraq misadventure from the start. We should have invested the resources that have been wasted in Iraq, in Afghanistan instead. We would have achieved significantly greater progress as a result. We would very likely have captured or killed bin Laden (remember him?) and the entire hierarchy of al Qaeda, if we had done so. We would also have retained the grudging respect and partial sympathy that we had from most of the world after 9/11, instead of being almost universally reviled — although that in itself is neither new or of particular concern." — Chet (Phoenix, AZ)

"Yes, it was the right thing to do. And, I think we need to be there for as long as it's going to take." — Marv (Federal Way, WA)

"Yes, it was most definitely the right move. We were attacked and we promised to take action against any country who aided or harbored the terrorists. We could have just relaxed and let bygones be bygones, but just how French are we? Not very! The news media is TOTALLY responsible for aiding and abetting the enemy at this point and also for portraying this as a useless war we cannot win." — Marianne

"We should have gotten Saddam Hussein the first time we went in. I don't know if it was the right choice for the U.S., but it certainly was the right thing for the Iraqi people. They have to be better off without him, and a chance to form their own democratic government has to be good for us." — Helen (Noblesville, IN)

"Going back into Iraq was the right decision. It was a hard and painful one, but, a very important and necessary step in stemming Islamic terrorism and bringing peace to the region. The cost seems high, but the stakes are much higher." — Tom (Springfield, MO)

"No! Iraq was a good buffer for Iran. We had horrible intelligence. The region was stable already. If we go to war we need to do it right. We should have gone into Syria and Iran at the same time to destroy the support. Bush and Rumsfeld screwed up! There were not enough troops and they had no idea what they were getting in to." — Dave

"I don't think the public has all the information to determine an intelligent answer. I have faith in our elected officials to have the information to make that determination. So yes, I think it was right to invade Iraq, and yes, I think it is right to remain as long as the officials determine that is necessary." — Shelley

"It was definitely the correct choice except that we should have put Iran on the list also. That way we would have been three years ahead of what we are going to have to do anyway." — John

"It was not a mistake, it was exactly what the administration wanted (another fear factor). There is a small group of leaders abusing power. The president should be held accountable for the lies that got us there, and the American people need to wake up." — Jace

"I think invading Iraq was the right choice given the alternatives. However, a better choice, if the law had permitted, would have been to topple the government from within. It would have taken more time, but in the end would have allowed the principals — Sunni, Shia, and Kurds — to resolve their own problems, perhaps by dividing Iraq into three separate nations. This may be the end game anyway, as there seems to be no answer to the hatred between Shia and Sunni. Civil war now seems almost inevitable." — Robert

"Maybe I am a little slow on the uptake, but I still feel that when we went to war it was under false pretenses. Where are the WMD? We hear more about the courtroom drama that is unfolding with Hussein than we hear about bin Laden. How the rest of the world must be laughing at us for the great show our officials have created." — Carol

"Invading Iraq was absolutely the RIGHT thing to do, anyone who thinks Saddam was not aiding and sponsoring terrorist is a fool." — John

"I would rather have seen our country go after bin Laden." — Verdon

"Iraq is a test of our patience and resolve, but it was the right thing to do, then and now. We as Americans should all understand that Saddam used chemical weapons on humans, so he must have had chemical weapons. Did we find them after the war began? No. But, we know that he had them. Do you wait until he uses them on us? That is what the U.N. wanted us to do." — Steven (Woodstock, GA)