As this forum veers off on another insane tangent demonizing Ducki for daring to ask, "Why don't you go ask the Kurds or Shiites if it was worth it?"
Quite a valid question IMHO, but still a very hard question to answer, not only in the time immediate time period of say 2004, but also into the unforeseeable future.
Even if we assert that of the three large groups in Iraq, only the Sunni Muslims were the larger beneficiaries of Saddam Huessein rule. We must also realize that as a typical tin pot police state dictator, Saddam made damn sure that no one could rise up to rival him in political power. And many a Sunni Muslim lost their lives in the fast shuffle as Saddam became an equal opportunity mass murder. Nor can we say that hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shias did not become victims of the same ethnic cleansing that a competent occupation of Iraq could have prevented.
Meanwhile more rational people pee their pants at that prospect that the entire Iraqi occupation debacle, quagmire, and bungle has awoken smoldering ethic tensions in other mid-east countries. Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia has peacefully lived for a over a thousand years next to a Shia dominated Iran, but add in a Shia dominated Iraq, and then Saudi Arabia loses all it land links with other Sunni dominated Arab States. Meanwhile the Kurds would have long ago left Iraq were it not for the fact the Turks, with their large Kurdish minority is ready to go to war if the Iraqi Kurds start stirring up rebellion in Turkish Kurds..