You can probably debate some of the assumptions, but the University of Chicago study summarized here certainly seems to make a case that not only does this war make more economic sense than continued “containment,” but it makes a lot more sense in human lives, on both sides.
(via InstaPundit)
24 view(s)
There were other options besides war or the sanctions then being used. Smart sanctions, supervised by peacekeepers, were one; open up the country to import and export industries, but monitor carefully, and reward behaviour such as destruction of WMD, etc.
Not that Hussein would have gone for it, but this is, I believe, the path we should have taken.
Again, why is it that peace is mocked? War is what forever must be justified, not peace. War is the easy way out.
I’ll grant you that war is sometimes felt by some to be the easy way out, the cutting of the Gordian Knot, the “Aw, to hell with it, let’s take ’em out” solution.
But sometimes not only is peace more difficult, it’s more expensive in both dollars and lives (as this analysis shows). And more expensive in other matters, too.
The Baghdad regime barely acquiesced to inspectors, and that at gunpoint.
“Smart sanctions” were tried a number of times; not only did they face serious resistance from Iraq (which refused to go accept changes in a sanctions regime they’d brought down upon themselves), but from Russia (which threatened to veto a number of proposals) and other major erstwhile trading partners (and folks to whom Iraq owed money). Debates over what should or should not be allowed in, what might or might not be “dual use,” etc., were ongoing and fierce. Smart sanctions were basically denounced by Iraq’s neighbors, by the political Right (as useless) and Left (as continuing to stifle Iraq), and by those folks who would rather trade (France, China, Russia).
Rewarding the destruction of WMDs seems pointless, since Iraq has denied having any, and has been willing to go to the brink and beyond in preventing their discovery.
And, at that, it was clear that the sanctions regime in general was on its last legs. Not only was it being violated on any number of fronts (in many cases by the UNSC members who opposed the war, abetted by neighboring countries who wanted the revenue), but the Baghdad regime was distorting what legal trade was occuring under the oil-for-food programs to continue to fund its military, its R&D, and its palace building program, at the expense of the Iraqi people. And trying to “monitor carefully” as trade routes both legitimate and illegitimate became more open was not “smart” but futile.
I am not mocking peace. Peace is an attribute of what a worthwhile world looks like. But it is not the only attribute, it is not ultimately desirable in and of itself, nor is it clear to me that peace is the only way to promote further peace.
I do agree, though, that we should have to justify war before we engage in it. I think that’s been done in this case, though others clearly disagree.