No, I am suggesting that the costs are not only going to be higher than you think, but they are going to be of a different type than you think.
What, you think you think more clearly than I do or do the rest of us on this thread? I suspect many of us are reasonably intelligent and well-informed, probably as much so as you are.
The costs of war are always substantial; yet, they are, in this instance, immaterial when compared with the cost of inaction. One would think this fact became self evident last week. With that said, please don't start with the heated rhetoric we all heard before the Gulf War. "This isn't Grenada; when you take on Iraq you're dealing with a major military power"; "Well, fighting the air war is one thing, but when the body bags start coming home ..."
Our resources are staggering. We will destroy these people
Thank god we're at a time in history where we have true leadership. If we have to fight these people, we can at least take comfort in knowing we have the likes of Powell, Cheney, Condi Rice, and others to rely on.
I would say, however, that the real problem will be in keeping the American people focused on the importance of the task at hand. The reality is this war cannot be over so long as Saddam and Arafat are in power.
I do fear we've seen the opening rounds of World War III; however, there simply isn't an alternative, and costs, whichever form they take, just aren't relevent to the decision process. |
