Containment is incredibly expensive. Even given the disaster that Iraq became, so far the war is still cheaper in both lives and dollars. I am basing this of course on pre-war estimates of what containment would have cost for X years, based on the known cost for years 1991-2003. No one knows how big X would have turned out to be, or whether a war would eventually have been necessary. No one knows whether Saddam would eventually have developed nukes, or how many of his own citizens he would have killed. (It was widely reported at the beginning of the war that Saddam's secret police killed over a 1000 Iraqis on an average month and tortured and maimed 1000's more.)

Containment did indeed work against the Soviet Union, but it cost US taxpayers many trillions of dollars. It worked primarily because of the strategy of mutually-assured-destruction. The leaders of the UUSR were motivated by a desire to dominate politically and economically and had no desire to destroy us or themselves. Iran... well does anyone know what the hell these guys are thinking?

By this, I am not suggesting that invading Iraq was a good idea. Or that invading Iran is a good idea now. The fact is that we're dealing with huge unknown and unknowable variables. Anyone who claims to have the answers is just full of it.

I looked through George Will's archives and I can find no anti-war arguments. I can find, as late as August 2003, a big wet kiss for Don Rumsfeld and attacks on the "certainties" of the war critics.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will102303.asp

and here he is attacking the inspections and buying the administration line in January 2003.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will013003.asp

George Will wasn't against this war before he was against it.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will.archives.asp

Where was George Will before this war started? Attacking the war critics. Thanks George.

Actually he was for it before he was against it.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will020603.asp

"In estimating the impact of Colin Powell's U.N. presentation on persons who believe that there is no justification for a military response to Iraq's behavior, remember the human capacity for willful suspension of disbelief . . .

People committed to a particular conclusion will get to it and will stay there. So the facts that Powell deployed, and the pattern they form, will not persuade people determined to be unpersuaded. But Powell's presentation, its power enhanced by his avoidance of histrionics, will change all minds open to evidence.

Thus it will justify disregarding the presumptively close-minded people who persist in denying . . . what? What are people denying who still deny the need for force? That Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Or that Iraq is resisting the inspections? No, they are denying only that force is needed."

George was just as much for this war as Billy Kristol or any other neocon.

George Will supported the Iraq war: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2002/09/16/making_the_right_choice

I just skimmed through the archive of Will's columns. It is interesting how his opinions shift over the years. Someone should write a column that brings columnists to task for their shifting opinions.

"Why wait?" Perhaps because the U.S. military has enough on its plate in the deteriorating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which both border Iran. "

I personally agree with this assertion (and thus disagree with Kristols impatience). But by itself, it leaves the implication that war MIGHT well make sense IF and WHEN things change for the better in Iraq and Afghanistan (i know its rank heresy bordering on lunacy to suggest thats a possibility, but still, stranger things have happened)

That leaves only the "containment worked for Stalin" argument. Will does not address the complexities of the ME, of Iranian behavior, and what possesion of nuclear weapons would do to Iranian behavior.

And yeah, im hardly surprised that Will is no enthusiast for spreading democracy in the Middle East - why would someone who preferst an Aristocratic Republic at home, whose main takeaway from the founding fathers is the need to limit majoritartianism to protect the rights of property, be a democratizer?

"Why wait?" Perhaps because the U.S. military has enough on its plate in the deteriorating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which both border Iran. "

I personally agree with this assertion (and thus disagree with Kristols impatience). But by itself, it leaves the implication that war MIGHT well make sense IF and WHEN things change for the better in Iraq and Afghanistan (i know its rank heresy bordering on lunacy to suggest thats a possibility, but still, stranger things have happened)

That leaves only the "containment worked for Stalin" argument. Will does not address the complexities of the ME, of Iranian behavior, and what possesion of nuclear weapons would do to Iranian behavior.

And yeah, im hardly surprised that Will is no enthusiast for spreading democracy in the Middle East - why would someone who preferst an Aristocratic Republic at home, whose main takeaway from the founding fathers is the need to limit majoritarianism to protect the rights of property, be a democratizer?

The "even George Will" is the mirror image of the "even the liberal The New Republic" meme which is frequently seen. Yes, George Will is on the right on most issues, and yes The New Republic is on the left on many issues (probably less so than Will is on the right). However, both are not part of, and are unwilling to be tarred by, the main political movements of the two parties in this decade, whereas they both were in the 1980's.

The notion that contianment would have been more expensive than this, is silly. Even in the most narrow terms the cost of the wars is 10-20 billion per mo. The cost of containment would have been halfof the military budget...which it was not. Oil is $40 per barrel higher, a portion of which is due to Iraqi freedom. What type of actuarial value are you putting on the 6000+ Iraqis that are getting killed every mo.(more than under Saddam) An asset on a balance sheet for a company is "good will" ....what type of value are you putting on the loss of it to the US. The list goes on and on. What was the cost even if containment failed? Remember Saddam was not behind 911 or linked with bin laden.

Centrist,
Thank you for forcing me to check my sources. My numbers were low all the way around, but my point stands.

According to the CBO web site, the cost of containment during 1991-2003 averaged $13 billion/yr, and would have continued indefinitely (increasing for inflation). In addition, as I pointed out earlier, no one knows whether a war might have finally been necessary after 20 years or so of "containment." Univ of Chicago did an interesting study on this at http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/steven.davis/research/War_in_Iraq_versus_Containment_(15February2006).pdf

The cost of the war, which obviously is more than anyone would have estimated, is averaging around $100 billion/yr according to CBO. Presumably, there WILL be an end to it. As a result, even now no one knows which option was cheaper in dollars.

The comparison in lives is definitely clearer. Depending on whether you believe the White House or various university studies, Saddam was killing 3000-5000 Iraqis per month. According to iraqbodycount.net (probably the most inclusive count), the war is costing 1100-1200 Iraqi lives/month.

My conclusion is that the differencial cost in dollars is not clear, but there are definitely fewer deaths each month. Not to mention the fact that eventually, the fighting WILL stop, resulting in a permanent decline in monthly deaths.

Comments?

You failed to address many of the costs that I thought off the top of my head.... I could flesh out more of them.

The future value of the 100 billion per year cost increase of the current war v. containment in the future implies that every year the war drags on (no end in sight) would have paid for at least 10-15 years of containment. It is a clear loser for the US even looking at costs very narrowly. After five years the civil war seems to be getting worse...5000 each of the last 2 mo. What will that number be the month we leave?

You make good point that gives me insight into the case for war. The view that was held among many in the admin. that the war was inevitable and the war will be short. With that assumption your case become somewhat closer to a wash. Couple that with a cheap war... 100 bill for the whole thing (high end of admin ests) Nirvana ensues.... Maybe oil only goes to 40 because of China/India demand rather than 75. In that case the war would have been a great investment.

I could see a case for the trade if the war ended two years ago and you believed(wrongly I think) that war was inevitable.
PS Ill try again on that link...I couldn't open it... and hopefully give a more specific response to it.

I think the surprise comes because the media has forgotten that the neocons are not in fact traditional conservatives. Will briefly reveals just how far adrift and radical the neocons and Republicans really are.

Then a few days later they forget the epiphany, and the media takes the neocon line as the mainstream, traditional conservative line.

The University of Chicago's Study was extremely dishonest. For one, they seem to assume that once the Iraq war was over, that was it -- there would be little to no necessiry for US forces in the area. That is how they were able to get the costs of containment to be higher than the then projected costs of the war.

How dishonest their argument was can be seen from the fact that after actual costs overwhelmed in leaps and bounds, even their inflated costs of containment, they promptly came out with another study showing that the consts of not fighting would have been higher. That is not a reasoned argument, its playing with numbers

On the other extreme Stiglitz estimated 1-2 trillion. That was an overstatement.

But realistically, the possibility that the costs of containment would exceeed the tremendous costs of fighting the war is very dubious.