WHAT PRICE NO VICTORY? :

Is Fighting Iraq Worth the Risks? (MICHAEL E. O'HANLON and PHILIP H. GORDON, July 25, 2002, NY Times)

A military operation to remove Mr. Hussein, however, would be the most momentous use of force by the United States since the Vietnam War. If President Bush undertakes such a mission, it will dominate the remainder of his term, radically reshape the politics of the Persian Gulf and Middle East, and have major repercussions for the global economy. Yet there has been little debate about the pros and cons of such a war. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings planned for next week will be a start, but only a start.

The track record suggests that the United States can continue to contain Saddam Hussein without war, just as we deterred the Soviets during the Cold War and just as we have contained North Korea for half a century.

Since the authors chose the examples, it also seems worth asking whether America, the Middle East, and the Iraqi people can better afford a fifty year standoff in Iraq. We're fond of patting ourselves on the back over our cost free, bloodless victory over the USSR in the Cold War, but in fact while we dithered millions died at the hands of the Soviets. Even worse from a selfishly American perspective, the expense of maintaining a virtual war footing from 1945, when we could have decommissioned most of the military as we had after every prior war, until the 1990s, when the USSR ceased to exist, did enormous damage to our economy, consuming trillions of dollars to no good end and saddling us, perhaps permanently, with a leviathan social welfare state.
Posted by Orrin Judd at July 25, 2002 10:34 AM