Wage(r) War

For thousands of compulsive gamblers, the build-up to war in Iraq could not come at a better time. Going through high school with a degenerate gambler as a friend, I came to learn that the stretch between the Super Bowl and March Madness is the darkest period on the calendar because there are hardly any good sporting events to bet on.

Thanks to a handful of entrepreneurial websites, however, gamblers need not restrict themselves to dull sporting events. At betonsports.com, it’s easy to wager on terrorism, war and even natural disasters. For those not fired up by a Blazers-Nuggets game, there’s a chance to bet on which hemisphere will host the next 7.5 magnitude earthquake (odds say the Eastern) or to wager on which month this year will see the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan destroyed by nuclear weapons. (At 15,000 to 1, the odds for March 2003 are the same as the odds that the Arizona Cardinals will win next year’s Super Bowl.)

No doubt it is macabre to bet on tragedy, but these wagers have the potential to be very helpful in this country’s decision about war in Iraq. Whether for the war or against it, both sides will agree that no citizen should be apathetic about this war. And yet so many are. Apathy stands in the way of an introspective national discussion of this war because people feel like “it” won’t affect them—“it” being the war or the consequences of not going to war. The conflict seems far removed, just like in Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf the first time. And that’s where betting comes in.

About the only redeeming quality of sports betting is the way it infuses even the dullest games with excitement. An inter-league, mid-season baseball game is a snoozer. But put $10 or $100 on it, and everyone starts to pay attention. The same thing is true with the war. There are many people out there who don’t live in big, target cities; their children won’t serve in the army either. For them, come peace or war, terror or security, their lives won’t be affected. So they don’t care. But make them put money on the outcome of the war—or not-war—and their apathy would melt away.

Already, a handful of websites let visitors guess when the war will officially start. This week’s odds are 200:1, next week’s are 150:1, at least according to betonsports.com. But for those who prefer pools to lines, marchtowar.com allows players to pay $5 to guess the day and time when the war will begin. The closest guesser gets 20 percent of the pool (in pre-paid gasoline cards). The other 80 percent goes to humanitarian organizations operating in Iraq.

Clearly, this website wants us to be skeptical about the war, but it doesn’t go far enough in making people think critically about the conflict. Sure, it mocks the oil aspect of the war, but this lampoon adds little substance to the debate. The way to elicit sober reflection about the conflict is to force every American to bet on these four fundamental propositions:

First, Iraqi-made weapons of mass destruction will strike a U.S. city by 2010.

Second, weapons inspections will successfully disarm Saddam Hussein by 2010.

Third, more than 20,000 U.S. troops will die in the war against Iraq.

Fourth, nation-building in Iraq will be interrupted by Iranian incursions before 2010.

The advisability of war depends on the outcome of these and other similar propositions. Unfortunately, like all gambling propositions, the outcome remains uncertain, so we have to give our best guess—a serious guess that can only be motivated by putting down serious money. If we forced every American to invest his or her Social Security benefits in these four wagers, you can bet there would be a much different discussion right now.

With their own money on the line, people would finally feel invested in making the right decision. After all, it’s one thing to trust the government when these international issues don’t affect your everyday life—for many of us they don’t—but as soon as retirement savings are at stake, the public will demand honest, clear answers to help us make the right choice.

Imagine that the savings of 200 million American voters depended on making the right bet about the success of nation-building. There would be overwhelming pressure on the White House and members of Congress to present a detailed and unambiguous statement about how they plan to introduce a working democracy into Iraq. There would be no patience for jingoistic drivel if we each knew that a misinformed decision about war would cost us our retirement nest-eggs.

Likewise, if millions of people had to bet their financial security directly on Saddam’s credibility, the peace movement would have to be a lot more convincing about why Saddam will go quietly into the night. Right now, it’s mostly Americans in target cities like New York and San Francisco that, as some suggest, will pay the price if Saddam again abuses his “last chance.” But if we all put money on it, then everyone who bets wrong would stand to lose.

It doesn’t matter that we can’t bet Social Security benefits directly on these propositions. The reality is that we already have a lot more at stake than just pension funds. The fate of our country is on the table whether we like it or not, and if we underestimate the danger of the war or misjudge the threat from Iraq, we will end up paying our bookie in blood, not dollars. That’s a scary prospect to face, but even more troubling is the fact that until we bet their money on it, there will still be people out there who just don’t care.

Jonathan P. Abel ’05 is a history concentrator in Quincy House. His column appears on alternate Thursdays.