Straw man arguments don't help, either.
Relative to now, yes it most certainly was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
Of course, the time when Iraq did that shortly before the decade in question, he had just spent nearly a decade involved in another invasion of a neighboring country -- with the full support of the US, which even rushed to publicly support Iraq when international pressure arose over their use of chemical weapons. So, its not exactly a mystery where he got the idea he could just invade neighboring countries with no consequences.
IIRC, an apparently poorly considered remark by US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie on the US position on Saddam's dispute with Kuwait was a biggie.
The joke, and maybe the truth, about the Dick Cheney remark that there was "no doubt" Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was that, of course he had such weapons (poison gas) and of course we knew he had them because we "still had the receipts" from when we sold that gas to him. Of course we wanted Saddam to use that gas against Iran.
IMHO it now appears that Dick Cheney, the neo-cons, etc., had an idea about the world and, especially, Iraq:
(1) Saddam was a bad guy. So, push on him, and if he doesn't obey, then invade him. We pushed; Saddam didn't obey; W and Co. invaded him in Gulf War II.
(2) Then part of the idea was W's statement "The Iraqi people are perfectly capable of governing themselves.". So, with such thinking, the US rushed to set up a government -- democratic, constitutional, parliamentary, secular.
Apparently the US expectation was that quickly the US would leave and Iraq would be liberated, free, relatively independent, peaceful, prosperous from the oil, and a buddy of the US.
Then a reality check set in: Oops, nope. Instead we learned what Saddam had warned us about, that we would have one heck of a time holding Iraq together. Saddam, with Stalinist techniques, had held Iraq together, but without Saddam what we did there just let the place come apart.
Apart? Nearly every street thug, gang leader, ambitious politician or cleric, international opportunist, etc. saw the fertile ground and started up. Soon there was the insurgency, i.e., something between just chaos and a civil war.
A big trigger? One of the first things the US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, did was to disband Saddam's army. Hmm .... That army had ballpark 7 million men. Let's see: IIRC, Iraq had ballpark 35 million people so 17.5 million males. So, the 7 million men was essentially all the men of military age in the country -- all of them. Hmm.
So, right away Bremer just put all 7 million on the streets, broke. Uh, maybe we might have thought a little about just why Saddam had those 7 million men in his army? Maybe mostly to keep them under his control and off the streets?
In particular, as the army was disbanded, Saddam's huge weapons supplies were left unguarded, then stolen, then used in the insurgency, e.g., as roadside bombs that killed/injured a lot of US soldiers.
The main reason for the insurgency? There are three main populations in Iraq, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. They all hate each other. At least the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with each other for over 1000 years.
And now, Iraq is essentially partitioned into Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite areas.
The Shiites have Baghdad and south and east from there to Iran, the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
The Sunnis have the area north and west of Baghdad and extending into northern Syria, and that Sunni area is mostly under the control of fundamentalist, medieval, brutal, angry, hostile, ambitious ISIS.
The Kurds have their areas, mostly on both sides of the border of Turkey.
Iran? Shiite.
Saudi Arabia? Sunni.
Assad in Syria? A branch of Shiite.
The rebels in Syria? Sunni.
The civil war in Syria? Apparently just another chapter of the 1000+ year old Sunni-Shiite war.
What's different since 100 years ago? There used to be a lot of desert and not much money or many people -- few people, poor, separated. Now with the oil money, the desert is still there but there is lots of money and many more people. So, the old Sunni-Shiite war can draw lots more blood.
So, that's what W, Cheney, the neo-cons, Wolfowitz, and Bremer took the US into. They were going to dump Saddam, set up a secular democracy friendly with the the US, and leave, all quickly. Lots of thugs quickly saw the fatal flaws, but W and Co. didn't.
So, the US spent lots of precious US blood and treasure chasing the dreams of Cheney, W, etc.
Lesson? If the US wants to play a role in a swamp, then it needs to understand the reptiles -- snakes, alligators, etc. Else, can get bitten by the snakes and alligators.
I would say this was a nitpick, but given the sibling response its perhaps a more important correction, the three main groupings around which identity politics, etc., work in Iraq are:
Sunni Arabs, Shi'ite Arabs, and Kurds.
The "Arab" modifier matters, because the Kurds are mostly Sunni, but are not (in terms of political identity) aligned with the Sunni Arabs.
So, here we illustrate: I don't know even the players on the field. But likely neither did W, Cheney, etc.
So, we reinforce my point: The US should stay the hack out of places it doesn't understand.
More people means more demand for water.
ps. you may have meant "exacerbate".