|
 |
|
|
The Costs of WarMarch 17, 2003. St. Patrick's Day. I'm not big on opinion pieces, but following the president's Wyatt Earp imitation ("you've got 48 hours to leave town, son") I felt that I needed to try to make sense of why I feel so troubled by this war, and the way that this administration got us to this point. Among other things, the company I work for designs software to help learners understand the tradeoffs between two or more decisions. In addition to breaking such decisions down into distinct criteria, we also try to help students understand that often, conflicts in decision-making arise because people can have different perspectives, and from these perspectives, come to value different criteria in different ways. The decision to go to war, based on what Bush said tonight, rests on the adminstration's assessment of the relative costs of taking military action versus not taking military action. Obviously, these costs cannot easily be quantified; human, economic, and diplomatic risks are all very different things. But I worry that the decisions that have been taken do not honestly account for what those costs may be. I want to talk about how different I feel my own perspective is on these issues, and why I disagree with the decision. Human costs The fundamental argument for war is that the potential cost of not taking action may result in more casualities, in the long run, than non-military options. Part of this argument rests on the presumed link between the Iraqi regime and active terrorists, including Al Qaeda. But: - The adminstration has not yet shared with the public hard evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein. - Past CIA analyses suggested that the primary scenario in which Hussein might use WMD is when he's backed in a corner -- precisely what military action will accomplish. - Where are Iraqi lives worth? Don't tell me innocent American lives are worth more than innocent Iraqi lives. Certainly, there will be civilian casualties in this war. They are not just collatoral damage. I'm not comfortable trading certain human loss now against the possibility of human loss later. - How much does taking out Hussein really reduce the threat of attacks on Americans? Seems like you've given terrorist recruiting agencies all the PR they need. And if you can't produce evidence showing that Hussein is connected to Al Qaeda, doesn't it follow that such terrorist groups have plenty of other ways to get weapons? For that matter, aren't there plenty of weapons readily available? You don't have to go to Baghdad to get fertilizer or box cutters. Economic costs Economic costs may not be as important as human costs, but to date the administration has not been willing to share realistic estimates of the cost, not only of prosecuting a war, but also of rebuilding Iraq. Most estimates suggest that keeping the cost down requires significant commitments from allies. But by taking unilateral action, haven't we sent a strong message that we don't need, or want, allies? Why should other countries accept a cost that was incurred by a country acting on its own, against the world's wishes? Diplomatic costs Have we gained anything diplomatically from this process? Other countries, I assume, have absolutely no reason to believe that the US will keep its word (Kyoto, missile treaties, etc.), nor that the US really cares about any kind of multilateral cooperation -- at least, any kind of cooperation that involves a concession by the US. Our Congress is pursuing extraordinarily stupid actions like trying to excise the adjective "French." The adminstration tried on a handful of different rationales for going to war, some of which were valid, but there really doesn't seem to be any long term vision driving US policy, and there is no acknowledgement that maybe the world really is composed of shades of grey, and requires something more than just a big stick. The costs of war Human. Economic. Diplomatic. Whatever kinds of risk you associate with war, it seems to me that the administration is consistently underestimating the costs that it will accrue. This is a hard decision. Nobody wants Hussein to stay in power. But what to do about it? Sanctions and inspections weren't cutting it. Maybe we needed to try something else. But is war the only answer? That's the best we can do? Ultimately, it comes down to trust. Do you trust the President to assess these costs in a manner consistent with your values? I do not. - I think the cost of human life from military action, particularly innocent Iraqi life, has not been adequately accounted for. - I think the cost of human life from future terrorist actions, if we do not take military action, has been consistently overrated in two ways. First, the connection between Iraq and terrorists has not been adequately supported with evidence. Second, the risk of future terrorist actions, due to blowback from taking military action, has been significantly downplayed by the administration. - I think the economic cost of war, and reparations and nation-building after war, have been consistently underestimated. - Finally, I worry that the diplomatic cost of "going it alone" will result in a diplomatic spiral that leads to more and more unilaterial action, and greater isolationism on the part of the US, over the next several years. This is not what a great nation should be -- a bully that flexes its might when it runs out of diplomatic ideas. I expect more from my country. All this said, I truly, truly hope that Bush is right -- that the war will go quickly, with minimal loss of life, that countries around the world will contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq, and that people in Iraq will find themselves more free in five years than they are now. But I worry -- I truly worry -- that the costs will be much, much higher than what we are being led to expect.
|
