There is an equation that many people look at half of, and it is the wrong half. When a business opportunity comes up, people ask, “What’re the payoffs and risks?” The other half is, “How much do we risk by NOT doing anything?” These questions can’t be answered accurately, but they can be estimated to give a picture of whether an opportunity is a good potential investment. In the current question of dealing with Saddam Hussein certain people, are looking at half of the equation. “What will it cost us to act?” These same people are not looking at the other half, “What will it cost us not to act?”

Among those asking the convenient half are certain opposition party members, foreign dignitaries, doom-and-gloom economists, and those who stand to lose if Iraq becomes a relatively democratic country.

So as not to be one-sided as I accuse others of being, let’s take a quick look at three things: risks/benefits of action, risks/benefits of inaction, and the motives for each group that is taking the one-sided stance.

What are the possible outcomes of acting? Let’s list all possible results of the outcomes, and then we can rate the likelihood of each.

	It could be a protracted war that drags on with mounting body counts.
	Oil prices could skyrocket, as Iraq’s oil production becomes unavailable and other Arab nations cut supply in protest for the attack. The global economy could go into a tailspin as oil prices rock the markets.
	Saddam could cause an eco-disaster like the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields.
	Saddam could use weapons of mass murder against Israel or the U.S.
	Saddam could sponsor terrorist attacks that might strike even if he is dead.
	Other Arab nations, incensed by the Iraq attack, could join in defense and escalate into a more general Middle-Eastern or world war.
	If we win, we could be bogged down in Iraq teaching them democracy. Otherwise, we risk another dictator seizing power in Iraq.
	Iraq could fragment with the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South breaking away from the predominantly Sunni Arabic center of the country. This could cause repercussions with Kurdish populations in neighboring Turkey and Iran or with southern Iraq even being annexed by Iran.
	This war, like the Gulf War, could be over faster than anyone believes possible. In a month after the campaign starts, we could be having elections in Iraq for a new constitution and a democratic, elected government.
	Oil prices could plummet as a quickly liberated Iraq boosts oil production. Cheap energy could be a spur to a presently sagging global economy.
	State-sponsored terror could be eliminated as the remaining despots see their mortality in Saddam’s demise.
	A liberated, secular, democratic Iraq could serve to spread new ideas to infect the rest of the Arab world. For instance, a secular, democratic Iraq and a secular, democratic Turkey sandwiching Iran might contribute to a new revolution to throw out the zealots.
	Other Arab countries could join in defending Iraq, and we could get more bang for our regime change buck.
	Islamist Radicals might feel the heat and tone down their rhetoric and crimes.
	America might finally get over waiting for the next shoe to drop and go on with business. The present climate of fear has paralyzed American business. Making it unsafe to be a terrorist will get our economy rolling again.
	The Republican Party could make gains in mid-term elections if this goes well, forcibly retiring Democrats.

History points toward the positive results that are listed. First, Arab armies have repeatedly proven themselves paper tigers, both against Israel and in the Gulf War. This doesn’t mean that we won’t have casualties or that Saddam will not use terrible weapons against our troops or our people. Second, after the Gulf War, oil prices dropped. Should that happen with the present economy, we might get out of the slump caused by Clinton’s policies, encouragement of CEO greed, and attacks against economic engines like Microsoft. Third, remember Saddam’s deadly threat with his SCUD missiles? Both civilians and military personnel were killed, but it wasn’t anywhere nearly as bad as Saddam “Mother of All Battles” Hussein had promised.

What are the risks of not acting? It’s a very good question that will have to wait for the next column due to the constraints of column space. Read it here next time.