Weighing the costs

Although U.N. inspections of Iraq will soon resume, the likelihood of not finding terrorist weaponry in Iraq is slim. Thus we must weigh the costs of military action in Iraq. What are the costs of going to war with Iraq? What are the costs if we do nothing?\nIf we do nothing, war proponents fear that Hussein will attack the U.S. with his large stockpile of weapons. They also believe that regime change could mean a fresh democratic government in Iraq that would serve as a model for the surrounding region. Hussein, who is a dangerous tyrant, would be forced out. The U.S.' firm stance against terrorism would warn Islamic fundamentalist leaders that we won't tolerate their anti-democratic, repressive governments. \nWar opponents worry that war will be economically devastating. Apprehension about the prospect of war has already led to a 29 percent drop in the S&P 500 this year. But some analysts say that economic angst will probably decline once the war commences, especially if the war goes well. The market may even rise above pre-war figures after military action with Iraq is under way. As cited in USA Today, when Hussein invaded Kuwait ten years ago, the S&P 500 dropped 13 percent in two months. When the U.S. bombing campaign started, the index jumped to 3 percent above the pre-attack figure.\nWar opponents also speculate that if Saddam sees a U.S. attack as inevitable, he will begin terrorist attacks the moment we start military action. \nBut why would Saddam possess terrorist-type weapons if he wasn't already planning on attacking someone sometime? Known terrorist leaders don't collect and produce biological and chemical weaponry just to protect their country. Hussein is loading up on these types of weapons because he plans to offensively use them on others. Sheer speculation that Hussein might not offensively use his large stockpile of weapons is not enough reason for us to allow him to continue his terrorist plans at the cost of American security.\nWar opponents also fear a large death toll. The U.S., though, illustrated in Afghanistan that our new "smart bombs" are truly smart and accurate. Increased use of smart bombs, which on average hit within three feet of their target, make military action more precise. Civilian deaths will mostly result if Hussein moves his key nodes (which will be U.S. targets) into places like baby food factories. \n The real issue emerges. Are we willing to endanger civilian lives? Is this war worth putting soldiers' lives on the line? These are hard questions. \n On the other hand, we must consider the alternative. If our nation doesn't go to war, how many innocent lives may be lost? \n Our world has never felt a large-scale effect of weapons like those Iraq possesses. The CIA's reports say that Iraq has a few hundred metric tons of chemical warfare such as mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX. The report also states that "all intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons." One nuclear bomb could devastate the U.S., and Iraq could have a complete nuclear bomb in one year. If we don't strike now, we will be at the mercy of a tyrant. If you remain unconvinced on these possibilities, go to the CIA's site and see for yourself what Iraq's up to.\nNational security is costly, but worth it. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"