Posted on: Thursday, August 5, 2004
EDITORIAL
Unanticipated costs of adventure in Iraq
Many of the costs of the war in Iraq are obvious enough to most Americans, as President Bush's conduct of that war and his reasons for undertaking it have become campaign issues.
About 920 American troops have been killed, more than 5,400 wounded, more than 10,000 evacuated to hospitals outside Iraq, while about 120 troops from coalition countries have died.
More than 10,000 Iraqis are thought to have perished since the invasion began. The cost so far to American taxpayers is estimated at $100 billion.
All of these numbers are ticking upward at dizzying rates.
The return so far on this investment is unclear. If Iraq in the end becomes a modern, stable, secular democracy and an inspiration to the Arab world, as promised by President Bush, many will feel the costs will have been worthwhile.
But the virulence of the insurgency in Iraq seems, if anything, to be growing, and Bush administration officials on occasion hint that the pacification problem may soon be left to Iraqi security forces.
All of these costs, as we've said, are relatively well appreciated by Americans.
Two costs, less understood but potentially far greater, are occurring not in Iraq at all, but in North Korea and Iran.
Leaders of these other two members of the "axis of evil" have concluded that the way to avoid Iraq's fate is to establish their own nuclear deterrent.
President Bush unwisely abandoned an international agreement that effectively kept North Korea from quickly going nuclear. Now the CIA thinks Pyongyang probably has at least a half-dozen nuclear weapons, perhaps in warheads deliverable atop missiles we know it has.
And Iran, despite its denials, gives every indication of stepping up a uranium enrichment program that can only be meant for weapons development.
While Bush has tried to cajole Iran into halting that program, the mullahs in Tehran have clearly concluded they have little to fear for now from an American government whose diplomatic credibility has been damaged and whose military is overburdened in Iraq.
Imagine Bush's discomfort in realizing that his best hope now in keeping Iran from going nuclear is reliance on a failing diplomatic effort by Britain, France and Germany.
More than the direct costs of war in Iraq, we'd suggest that history one day will conclude that President Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein diverted American resources and attention from a greater problem.
Iran and North Korea were worse threats than Iraq to begin with. Bush's choice to go to war in Iraq instead of preventing Iran and North Korea from becoming nuclear powers will have made Americans — and the world — far less safe.
