|
at least we're seeing the start of a cost benefit analysis here - thanks Davo. but it's a bit inadequate at the moment. benefits of going to war with Iraq as stated by Davo:
- decreased probability that Iraq will start an unprovocked war with the United States with nuclear weapons.
- replace a baddie with a goodie in Iraq
- create a dissincentive in the middle-east for anybody to ever annoy the United States I have some serious problems with these benefits:
- the CIA states (and I heartely agree) that there appears approximately zero probability of Iraq starting an unprovocked war with the U.S. Sadam is a rational (if nasty) chap and knows the concenquences of attacking the U.S.
- while biological and chemical weapons can be made covertly... a nuclear weapon cannot be made without ommitting enough of a 'noise' for US satellites to pick up the activity. So a mushroom cloud there will not be
- even if he could, it's unlikely he's use a WMD on the U.S. as he knows the consequences. Note that he has WMD during the 91 war (which he'd previously against Iran) and he didn't use them on the U.S. - coz he knew the consequences. what's changed?
- which goodies are you going to replace Sadam with? The Kurds wont be allowed to take over, and in fact will cause many a problem with their independence movement unstabilising Turkey. Maybe the Shiites? Oh - goodie! Most people don't know that while the US has offered some support to the shiites in Iraq, they've recieved more support from their muslim brother - Osama!
- Looking at previous U.S. attempts to 'liberate' countries, it is by no means obvious that the place will be any better. Maybe... but don't assume it's a fact.
- I'm not sure what precident this will be setting and so I'm not sure exactly what sort of dissincentive it's supposed to introduce into the minds of arab and muslim leaders? I do know that it will piss a lot of people off and create more hatred of the west. The increasing anti-western feelings are best shown in the opinion polls in Turkey and the recent election in Pakistan (two US allies - despite the fact that Pakastan has many many more links to Osama than Iraq has ever had). So - if somebody can work through that and find a good set of benefits, we can line them up against the costs: - billions of dollars, taxpayers dollars that is, and so all the associated costs (deadweight loss, dissincentives, distortions).
- thousands of lives, not too important to most people coz they'll just be towel-heads
- hundreds of lives, more important to most people as they'll look just like us and they're sister might have gone to school with your nextdoor-neighbour.
- the possibility that, once in a state of war with nothing to lose, Sadam actually will use his WMDs. After all, isn't that why people get WMDs? To deter being invaded and use against aggressors?
- loss of civil liberties that always goes along with any war
- increased size of government that is very rarely reversed
- increased hatred of the US and the west, possibly fueling extremist groups to commit more attacks such as Bali
- the precedent that you invade countries when you don't like them, and not when they're a threat to your national security. now, that's a slightly more rigorous cost-benefit analysis. But it's not complete... seems like more thought is needed - no? 24601
| 
