What Price Glory?

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

Thousands, possibly tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives snuffed out. Worldwide recession, with high unemployment and inflation combined. Arab hatred smoldering for years and inspiring terrorist attacks on Americans in lands far removed from the Persian Gulf.

That, to be sure, is a worst-imaginable-case assessment of the possible costs of a U.S.-Iraq war. The actual costs might not be quite that disastrous; they would in any case depend on a string of variables so long -- (the length of the war, number of troops involved, whether chemical weapons are used, intensity of air raids, accuracy of Iraqi missiles and antiaircraft fire, extent of damage to oil wells barely begin the list) -- that they cannot be predicted with anything remotely resembling precision. But though war might become inevitable, two factors should give pause to the most fervent of American hawks:

1. The worst case is all too plausible.

2. It takes a roseate imagination to conceive of any best-case, low-cost outcome.

The potential cost has three elements:

MILITARY. The price in lives -- on both sides -- is the hardest to forecast. Says Anthony Cordesman, a Washington-based military analyst: "War is one big experiment." It is just possible a coup in Baghdad would topple Saddam Hussein and bring the war to a quick, low-cost conclusion.

It is much more likely, though, that Saddam's government was accurate in warning the U.S. that taking it on would not be "like Panama and Grenada." His military arsenal is the largest in the Arab world and is capable of doing extensive damage. At sea, Saddam's modern, Soviet-built magnetic mines are difficult to detect and could be a major menace.

The U.S. would try to minimize casualties by avoiding a direct lunge into Kuwait and thus a head-on clash with Iraqi armor in the narrow coastal strip. An American offensive would rely heavily on aerial bombing; ground troops would probably flank Iraqi forces by swinging 100 miles inland and stage night + attacks, for which they are much better trained and equipped. Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has no doubt that the U.S. would defeat Iraq -- "but at a terrible price."

ECONOMIC. War in the Middle East could swiftly cut deliveries of oil from Saudi Arabia and the Arab emirates along the Persian Gulf; ship owners would be loath to send tankers into a war zone to pick up their petroleum. Iraqi missiles could damage Saudi oil fields, reducing supplies even after the war was over (though some experts say much of the damage could probably be repaired in a few months). The shortages would exacerbate the already startling run-up in oil prices. How much is anybody's guess, but $50 per bbl. for crude, vs. a bit less than $32 now and $18 as recently as mid-July, is conceivable.

In the U.S. recession would become a certainty, and it could easily be deep. Experts at the Institute for International Economics in Washington calculate that $50 oil would cause "negative growth" of 3% to 4%, with a jump in unemployment well above the present 5.5%. Inflation would leap to a 9% to 10% annual rate, from around 4% to 4.5%. In Western Europe and Japan there might be some continued prosperity, since those economies have been rising much more rapidly than the U.S.'s. Even so, I.I.E. director Fred Bergsten predicts that "growth would slow by 2 or 3 percentage points, and inflation would rise by 3 to 4 points." Robert Hormats, a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, also fears a financial collapse: "If the Japanese stock market drops 4% because of concerns about a war ((as it did in a single day last week)), it would fall 40% to 50% on news of a real war. It would certainly shake the world financial system to its foundations."

POLITICAL. The extent of potential anti-American outrage in the Arab world if war comes is a source of fierce debate. Western and some Middle Eastern analysts point to the success the U.S. has had so far in isolating Iraq. Anti- American demonstrations have occurred in six Arab states, but Egypt, Syria and Morocco have sent troops to help the U.S. and its European allies confront Saddam. Optimistic analysts expect that, at least if war comes as a result of a clear Iraqi provocation and the U.S. wins quickly, the Arab world will go with the winner and see Saddam Hussein as a blusterer who sacrificed huge amounts of treasure and lives and breached Arab unity by invading Kuwait, for nothing.

Others are not so sure. In Jordan observers note that the facedown with Saddam has united Communists, Baath socialists and Islamic fundamentalists into a single anti-American front, something that has never happened before. If Saddam should succeed in bringing Israel into a war with the U.S., the result would be sheer political disaster. Such a conflict would look like a ganging up of the U.S. and Israel against the Arabs. Hatred of the U.S. could lead to coups toppling pro-American governments throughout the region as well as widespread terrorism.

The price of not confronting Saddam must be pondered as well. A failure to defeat him now would leave open the possibility that he would re-emerge, equipped with nuclear arms and able to shut off the world oil supply for political reasons. As costly as putting down Saddam would be today, coping with the menace he might present in the future would be even more dire.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 500 adult Americans taken for TIME on Aug. 23 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 4.5%.

CAPTION: Do you favor taking strong actions against Iraq even if it . .

With reporting by Richard Hornik and Bruce van Voorst/Washington