Nothing Is Ever Simple When the Question Is One of War

All sides in the Persian Gulf are now poised for war. If it comes, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has only himself to blame. He thought the world wouldn’t care if he chewed up Kuwait, but he was wrong. The world cares.

Backed by a dozen United Nations resolutions and the supportive vote of both houses of Congress, President George Bush now has every possible option. He can continue with the course of embargo, isolation and military standoff, or he can initiate offensive hostilities. The latter can occur any time after midnight tonight, but it need not occur right away, or at all.

The Case for War: The arguments for military intervention are complex and substantial. The one that stands out most clearly is the U.S. need--and the needs of U.S. allies--not to reward the heinous aggression of a ruthless dictator with either inaction or appeasement.

The United States has a special responsibility to support broad-based international action against so flagrant a violation of international law. The dictator in question possesses a frightening chemical, biological and perhaps even nuclear capability. The Persian Gulf’s oil pool is too crucial to the world economy to allow it to be held hostage, or in sway, by the dangerous, cruel and unpredictable dictator from Baghdad. The Iraqi action was so terrible--and the obvious intentions of President Saddam Hussein so craven and threatening--that no sympathy for Iraq exists to counter the tide of patriotic fervor in support of the President.

Despite the array of forces against Iraq, war is not inevitable. Even at this terribly late hour it can still be averted. But the first move must be Baghdad’s. It is said that Saddam Hussein bridles at the very thought of Iraq being handed any kind of “deadline.” But that is the precise and explicit will of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, and that unusually firm and clear U.N. action came about because of his unconscionable decision to invade and utterly crush Kuwait. The crisis is therefore his to wind down. He needs to do something dramatic and meaningful now.

The Case Against War: If he fails to withdraw, however, hard and critical questions about future U.S. moves still need to be asked. Once initiated, military hostilities are not easily stopped--and their consequences are unpredictable.

While it may be true that a war might be over in a matter of days, it is also possible it could be a much longer, much bloodier conflict. Even then there is little doubt that victory would go, as it should, to the international coalition led by the United States. In any event, it is probable that the U.S.-led multinational forces would suffer significant casualties--and that the cost to the U.S. treasury would be considerable.

This country has committed more than three times as many troops to the task as even Saudi Arabia--the country most directly threatened by the Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait and which itself has three times as many troops there as Britain, the next largest national force. The coalition against Iraq is broad, but it is not deep. Even the financial contribution of some of our biggest allies--Germany and Japan--lags far behind. The United States is bearing the greatest burden.

Domestically, the U.S. economy is in trouble. Even in times of economic health, wars are costly; but in moments of economic weakness, they can be corrosive. Victory, even when it comes, will not be cheap, either in human lives or hard U.S. dollars.

Another cost of victory could be a deepening hatred for the West in many Arab countries. As each day would bring news of fresh new military triumphs for the U.S.-led forces, the vast Arab publics could unleash unpredictable and perhaps violent emotions across the peninsula that could haunt U.S. policy for years to come. That reaction, in turn, would serve to destabilize existing regimes that the United States supports.

The defeat of Iraq in itself would end the gruesome and evil presidency of Saddam Hussein. But it might not guarantee the succession of a more acceptable head of state. And, even if it does, the stability of the region would still depend in large measure on the behavior of Iran and Syria. A weakened Iraq would create a power vacuum into which these two powers would rush with predictable avidity. Such a development would not gain peace and stability for that region but instead continue the seemingly endemic instability that historically has been its cruel fate.

It is possible to justify a military intervention on the grounds of protecting natural resources vital to Western economic security. But a large-scale war in the region could decimate oil fields, refineries and shipping facilities far more than they already have been by the invasion. From the strictly economic perspective, military action may be a cure worse than the disease.

The Great Uncertainties: A final worry is for our great ally Israel. An attack on that region’s one democracy would instantly concern and potentially involve the United States militarily. Hussein threatens to attack Israel in an effort to divide the coalition; Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak says he will not participate in an anti-Iraq war that includes Israel. That possibility alone is worrisome. Decades of accumulated animosities and alliances cloud any simplistic picture of right versus wrong and inevitably work to compromise even the noblest of U.S. intentions.

All this is by way of underscoring the tremendous pressures on the President--the momentous decisions he must make. He retains all his options. Even if he decides to exercise the military one, there are gradations of offensive action considerably short of full-scale war. The United States can even press forward with sanctions for the time being. The President will need to be wise, just, prudent and strong in the days ahead.