By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF - IT IS time to hear about Iraq from us feckless wimps. So far, the debate has been dominated by the hairy-chested types who crush cockroaches with their bare hands and urge invasion as a matter of principle, and by the hand-wringing doves who are principled opponents of any unilateral military action - unless it is for whales.
But many of us are unprincipled. The real issue is not whether we want to overthrow Mr Saddam Hussein, but what price we would have to pay.
A poll this month found that, generally, Americans favour invading Iraq, 57 per cent to 36 per cent, but if American casualties will be significant, then a majority opposes the invasion, 51 per cent to 40 per cent.
I am embarrassed to speak up for gutlessness, but it is a practical approach and, as a nation, we often chicken out of dangerous ventures wisely.
For example, North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq. It has stronger connections to terrorist activity, runs a more advanced biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programme, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48 states.
Yet, there is a good reason President George W. Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. If we tried, the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with nerve gas or even nuclear warheads.
Mr Bush has not overcome some practical concerns about an invasion of Iraq. These include:
Can we overthrow Mr Saddam swiftly and at a reasonable cost in lives? He will be smart enough this time not to send his 350,000 troops out into the desert where they are obvious targets. Instead, he may keep them in the cities, surrounded by civilians, where the United States cannot bomb them easily.
Will an invasion trigger chemical attacks instead of preventing them? It is hard to see why Mr Saddam, if left in power, would risk his future by using anthrax or smallpox for terrorism. But if we invade, he has every incentive to use them or lose them.
Do we have a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq? We must not simply hand the country over to another general who comes from the 20 per cent Sunni minority. Yet, is the Bush administration really prepared, given its concerns about Shi'ite Iran, to hand power democratically to the 60 per cent Shi'ite majority?
Is the Iraqi desert the best place to spend US$55 billion (S$96.8 billion)? Fighting a war will cost perhaps US$35 billion, and it will take US$20 billion more to rebuild Iraq. That is more than what the US government spends in a year on elementary and secondary education and health research combined.
Will a war on Iraq set back the war on terror? Outrage around the Arab world at our invasion of Iraq could lead to a surge of anti-Americanism, growing support for Al-Qaeda and the collapse of governments in Cairo and Riyadh. What if we won in Iraq but lost in Saudi Arabia?
If Mr Bush were really addressing these concerns, weighing them and then concluding that, on balance, it is worth an invasion, I would be reassured. But, instead, it looks as if the President, intoxicated by moral clarity, has decided that whatever the cost, whatever the risks, he will invade Iraq.
And that is not policy, but obsession.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/analysis/story/0,1870,140027,00.html
| 
Online Stats: 
