As for whether those who oppose the invasion on the grounds of deterrence, whether they talk about the costs, I actually don't read too many folk who argue for it. The more frequent thing I hear argued is some version of containment.
Actually, judging from the arguments on this thread (& elsewhere), the most frequent argument against war simply assumes that whatever Bush says must be false, and that containment is working fine. The line of argument doesn't even to bother to discuss the pros & cons of containment, or acknowledge that it's breaking down.
However, my guess is that the "costs" in human lives of deterrence will, almost always, work out to be less than that of invasion.
This guess assumes that deterrence has worked, which is a way of winning your argument before making it -g- The costs of failed deterrence can be quite high, as I fear we may discover in Korea.
But the usual form of stating it, the now without nukes or later with them, lacks the uncertainty that the future always brings.
Likewise for the 'just keep up containment' arguments. This is all going to be uncertain as we have no clear window into Saddam's head, he knows even less about us, and every player in the game is guessing at the psychology of every other player. |
