Make no mistake about it, the costs of war in Iraq will be huge. Iraqi armed forces are better prepared this time around -- in the Gulf War their Soviet-era tanks stood no chance against the technological superiority of the American M1A2 Abraham Tank. In 1991, dug-in Iraqi tanks watched as their rounds bounced harmlessly off the armor of the Abraham tanks. The technical sophistication of the Abraham's weapons system ensured a high kill rate; the flanking maneuvers carried out by General Fred Frank were immensely successful, allowing for an extremely swift advance into Iraqi territory.
Saddam realizes this time around, however, that the will to fight is inextricably linked to American domestic support, and he has pledged to drag any invading forces into long, drawn-out urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad. Saddam is relying on his calculation that sustained urban warfare with high civilian casualty rates will weaken domestic support for the war as the conflict drags on.
Another overlooked factor is the logistical support needed to support such a war. Keeping front-line troops supplied with sufficient fuel and ammunition was a logistical nightmare in the Gulf war -- and that was when Iraq's immediate neighbors were willing to give the United States unconditional use of their land and facilities. Clearly, this war will not be as simple to execute, much less win. The Iraqi armed forces have learnt from their previous experience -- while they know that a pure military victory is impossible, they will certainly attempt to raise the cost in human lives so as to erode American political support of the war effort.
Of course, there are other costs to war. The world's economies will likely face a massive spike in the cost of oil, and financial markets around the world already reflect the nervousness of investors concerned about impending war.
In short, the United States and the international community need to sit down together and formulate a detailed plan committing themselves to action in a certain timeframe -- without domestic pressures dominating the agenda. The call for more time for weapons inspectors is all well and good now, but by a certain date Iraq must prove that it's clean of such weapons. Otherwise, military action should follow in controlled stages, supported by the armed forces of nations all around the world. This detailed plan should ideally be agreed on by all the nations involved -- with such this action, the resolve of the international community will come across strongly.
Most importantly, Iraq needs to be conscious of the details of the plan. A commitment to action seems to be the most effective way to force the country out of its ambivalent attitude and spur it into undertaking more concrete efforts to prove its purported innocence. And again, the international community must be willing to act if necessary. If the United Nations is hesitant to back its words up with action, the effectiveness of future warnings (such as Resolution 1441) will be undermined. In such a case, we might as well not have a U.N. Security Council.
It's good that recent debates on campus have attempted to present both sides of the conflict. However, mindless activism must be avoided if a proper decision is to be made; careful consideration must be given to both the evidence and costs and benefits of each individual course of action. It is fine and good to state what one believes in, but one must always look in the mirror and make sure that one's beliefs are supported by the evidence that surfaces as the situation develops.
In short, war should not -- and cannot -- be ruled out as a viable option in this ongoing fiasco. That would only encourage Iraq and other rogue nations to continue acting as an international pariah, flouting the rules of the international community at will. The world community, for its part, needs to discard the ambivalence of its current stance regarding the Iraq situation. It needs to take a collective, firm stance predicated along a detailed plan and specific timeline. This would put the ball back in Iraq's court. Ultimately, its own actions will decide its fate.
I am not for a military campaign. In fact, as I have reiterated in this article, it should be the absolute last resort, and should only be undertaken with due consideration of the evidence after Iraq has exhibited a repeated unwillingness to cooperate. When push comes to shove, if war is what it takes to ensure that the world and the human race remains safe from the threat of arbitrary deployment of chemical and biological munitions, then we must all back a military effort. To do otherwise would be hypocrisy.
