Consider the Alternatives: A War in the Gulf Isn't Necessary

PRESIDENT Bush is "tired." Tired, he says, of waiting for Saddam Hussein to surrender unconditionally and withdraw all Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

"We're not here on some exercise," he told American forces in Saudia Arabia over Thanksgiving. "We won't pull punches." In other words, Bush is ready and willing to wage war in the Gulf.

Military confrontation over Kuwait is likely just months away. Hussein has unconditionally refused to unconditionally surrender and in response, Bush ordered 200,000 additional American troops to the front. The new forces raise the specter of a U.S. led air and ground offensive into Kuwait. So too does Bush's recent diplomacy; rather than focus on peaceful solutions, he has spent his time counting votes on a United Nations resolution approving the use of force in the Gulf.

His precious approval ratings plummeting due to inaction, Bush says he's ready to shed some American blood to pay "the price of liberty."

But what "liberty"? And how high a price for it? Bush's vague rhetoric--and his refusal to seek approval from Congress for his de facto pursuit of war--have needlessly pushed the world to the brink of catastrophe. Before blindly accepting the costs of a military assault on Kuwait (or as some suggest, Iraq), Bush should seek a negotiated solution to the crisis that involves the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from populated areas of Kuwait, and the establishment of military deterrence to further aggression.

IT IS very difficult for residents of Cambridge, Mass., to understand the human consequences of war in the Gulf. From a distance of several thousand miles, we will not witness the immense loss of life that will result; initial estimates indicate that an invasion of Kuwait will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, even without the use of poison gas. We will not suffer the consequences of a regional escalation of the conflict; if Israel is drawn into the fray, the entire Middle East could soon be at war, perhaps nuclear war, and deaths could run to the millions.

And few of us worry about any direct personal repercussions of Bush's policy; the voluntary armed forces will keep most Harvard students (even those military cheerleaders who wave their hands at 100,000 lives) from the front.

The distance from Iraq may explain why so many Harvard students have ignored the buildup and impending war. But it cannot excuse such ignorance. The crisis in the Gulf will affect all of us soon enough--whether through friends or relatives killed, through an ensuing domestic economic crisis or, eventually, through a draft. By then, many will belatedly wonder what the fighting is for.

Is it to undo Saddam Hussein's human rights atrocities? Military confrontation over Kuwait will only increase the toll of suffering on the devastated Kuwaiti people.

Is it to lower the price of oil and thus protect the American standard of living? A war--which will likely destroy Kuwaiti, Saudi and Iraqi oil fields--will only raise oil prices and push the economy to a major recession.

Is it to prevent Hussein from procuring nuclear weapons? Bush emphasized this rationale only after New York Times polls revealed that stopping nuclear proliferation was the only justification for invading Kuwait that a majority of Americans accept. But even a decisive victory in Kuwait will not destroy Iraq's nuclear capability. Only an invasion of Iraq itself--costing hundreds of thousands of additional casualties and possibly lasting years--could possibly accomplish that.

Unless our non-proliferation policy is invading any country we don't like that gets dangerous weapons, America should instead try to negotiate inspections of Iraqi weapons facilities or opt for Israeli-like surgical air strikes, cruise-missile strikes or commando missions.

The only remaining justification for immediate war in the Gulf is that a bloody defeat for Hussein would establish peace in the Middle East by deterring future aggression from other expansionist-minded leaders. But such deterrence would only work if other leaders were convinced that the same kind of military action would happen again in the same way: universal world condemnation, a universal approval of force and then a U.S.-led attack.

If the war in the Gulf goes without a hitch, perhaps some crazed dictators might think twice before invading their neighbors. (Or, for internal reasons, they may attack anyway.)

This optimistic scenario assumes the war is quick and relatively painless. A more plausible scenario is that war will be so costly to the United States and its allies that politicians will be promising never to involve their countries in such entanglements in the future. That equals no deterrent for future aggression and a failure of the post-Cold War world order.

WHAT'S the solution? One alternative approach would be to wait for economic sanctions to ruin Iraq's economy. The destruction of Nicaragua's economy by U.S. sanctions--though they were relatively weak and took several years to work--illustrates that military force is not our only foreign policy tool.

A more immediate and sustainable answer is a negotiated settlement with Hussein, and it appears likely that he would withdraw from Kuwait and release all hostages in exchange for some oil fields.

Would such a strategy be appeasement? Since Hussein would be withdrawing from Kuwait and American armies advancing, it could hardly be counted as a huge victory for Iraq. But more importantly, in any negotiated scenario, a permanent U.N. military presence in the Middle East would be necessary to prevent future Iraqi agression. Such a strategy would rely on military doctrines of deterrence--not goodwill--to keep peace in the Middle East.

Would such a strategy work? It has for Israel for more than 15 years. Would such a strategy be costly? Certainly, but much less so than a bloody war and a global recession.

There is no costless solution to the Persian Gulf crisis; our country will pay with lives and money. The question is whether our leaders will seek to minimize the loss of life--American or otherwise--by searching out non-military solutions. Can President Bush honestly tell the American people he has fairly considered every non-war alternative?

Perhaps Bush is just too "tired" of waiting to try to avoid war. It is a tragedy that we have a leader who mistakes impatience for leadership.