Trying to compare Saddam to the Soviet Union is absurd. The Soviets achieved strategic parity with us, a parity that, if tested, would have destroyed the world
This parity cuts both ways. The Soviets had something to lose and it made them cautious. Saddam has little history of caution, and the Islamists are nihilists.
We’re not talking about an enemy achieving strategic parity, we’re talking about a shift in the regional balance of power
Yes, we are talking about such a shift, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be costly to cede Saddam hegemony of the gulf. He who controls 25% of the global supply of oil has quite a lever.
Saddam is a nut case but he’s not in any way suicidal
Saddam's propensity to miscalculate is so great that he has been suicidal at several points, in effect if not in intent. Have you read Pollack? he sums up the arguments well. And who knows what will happen when he dies? One son is a known psychopath with a history of clubbing enemies to death at diplomatic functions, the other is an enigma currently running the secret police.
There’s a lot we can do to Saddam, short of invasion, that we haven’t done. Number one on the list would be use of military force to enforce sanctions.
Ken Pollack also lists the reasons why we cannot get cooperation from Saddams neighbors for perpetual sanctions. Without that cooperation they cannot be enforced, and have essentially dissapated now, despite the continued use of military force.
You keep repeating how an attack would "make recruits for Osama". Well what do you think the current situation of no-fly zones, patrols, bombing, sanctions is doing? It's doing it over a long period of time, and rather ineffectually, so we inspire anger but little fear. Definitely a good recruiting combo for OBL, that.
What are the costs of deterrence? The apparatus is already in place, we just have to point it in their direction
No, containment is breaking down. If we back off to mere deterrence it's unlikely that we can keep up the no-fly zones for long. If we back off to mere deterrence when Saddam gets nukes, we will effectively cede him hegemony of the Gulf as his neighbors move to appease him and cut a deal. That's the cost of deterrence -- if Saddam IS deterrable. If he is not, then it will cost far more.
In any event, would the “very great cost” of the Cold War exceed the cost of a war with the Soviet Union?
For Americans personally, no. But I wonder what Angolans, or Poles, or Vietnamese, or anybody else who lived behind the Iron Curtain or in a country that had a proxy war would say about the cost? |
