Difficult to say. The Iraq War and the occupation disaster afterwards were both inept catastrophes in so many ways for both the Iraqis and for the U.S population that had to piss away those trillions of dollars. But on the other hand, even the somewhat unstable modern Iraq is better off than it was under the rule of an extraordinarily violent, extremely brutal regime like Saddam's. He wasn't just some soft-touch authoritarian in the style of Turkey's president, for example. Hussein was more like a miniature Stalin (one of his personal heroes) in his sheer ruthlessness towards his own people. Just a couple examples: what his government did to the marsh Arabs of the Euphrates and the Halabja chemical attack along with other atrocities against the kurds in the north of the country.
None of this is in any way a defense of the monstrous collateral damage of the U.S occupation or of the U.S government's reasons for that war, but now that it's happened, the country is better off than it was under Saddam himself.