The Costs of War

Discuss this on our boards!

The Costs of War
by James Hall, Senior Associate Editor

March 28, 2003

"Leaning Left"

James Hall Now that we're committed to war, it's clear that we must see it through and support our armed forces who are risking far more than we in this effort. The battle to take Iraq from Saddam Hussein is joined and must be completed. But the costs of war are great, and ultimately we must ask ourselves if they were worth this effort, and if this was really the right way to go about
eliminating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

It's now apparent that neo-conservative optimism about Iraq was overdone and unrealistic. US and British forces are not running into cheering crowds of revolting, liberated Iraqis. They are running instead into tough resistance from regular and irregular Iraqi armed forces. The massive defections of Iraqi military units and senior military officials and the civilian revolts against Saddam's government by Iraqis haven't materialized.

Emboldened by television images of American prisoners, American casualties, and downed Apache helicopters, Saddam's forces have proved more resistant and resilient. He's proven clever in placing armed soldiers and paramilitaries-called Saddam Fedayeen--among the civilian population to attack the Coalition armed forces' lengthening supply lines, and to keep the wavering regular Iraqi army divisions in line.

The "Desert Storm Lite" approach of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, attacking in small, highly mobile divisions instead of with the overwhelming force mandated by the Gulf War's Powell Doctrine, now seems uncertain and even potentially dangerous as we approach Baghdad. If resistance from crack Republican Guard units around Baghdad is great, will we have enough armed forces to do the job of house to house fighting?

The war's timing must also be considered suspect. Did we begin this war with enough forces ready, or was the failure of the US 4th Army Division to deploy more serious in retrospect than it then seemed? Would it not have been better to have waited until we had sufficient forces to protect our supply
lines and deal with Saddam's guerilla activities, convinced Turkey to open up a northern front for the war, and developed more support and participation
from the rest of the world?

Another huge cost to us, yet to be paid, is the blow to the reputation of the US abroad, especially in Europe and Islamic countries. Americans may ignore or even despise negative world opinion, but our war on terrorism and our push to eliminate the possession of weapons of mass destruction depends upon the world's cooperation. We have lost much of the good will generated by September 11 and risk angering an entire generation of young Arabs who may now grow up to hate the US as much as they hate Israel.

It's even possible that the war with Iraq may make us more vulnerable to terror and weapons of mass destruction than before.

Finally, and least importantly, is the financial cost of the war and occupation. After hedging for months, the Bush administration belatedly came to Congress to request rush funding for the war, the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure and occupation of Iraq for the next sixth months. Their first request--$75 billion dollars. But who knows the cost of the long-term stay, and where the money will come from?

There is little doubt that our military is capable of doing the job in Iraq, even with reduced forces. But will the US and Britain suffer many casualties? Will we lose the respect and support of the world for a continued war on terror? And will we be able to afford the financial cost of a war with Iraq? Ultimately, does this war accomplish the Bush administration's goals for reducing weapons of mass destruction and winning the war on terror? That seems very much the question now. ***

James Hall
Orlando, FL USA

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files