WIMPS ON IRAQ August 27, 2002 By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF NEW YORK TIMES It's time to hear about Iraq from us feckless wimps. So far the debate has been dominated by the hairy-chested types who smush cockroaches with their bare hands and urge invasion as a matter of principle, and by the hand-wringing doves who are principled opponents of any unilateral military action - unless it's for whales. But many of us are unprincipled. To us the existing Iraq debate seems largely beside the point; the real issue isn't whether we want to overthrow Saddam, but what price we would have to pay to get the job done. That's also how the public sees it. A poll this month found that Americans generally favor invading Iraq, 57 percent to 36 percent, but if American casualties will be significant then a majority opposes the invasion, 51 percent to 40 percent. In other words, most of us are lily-livered sunshine patriots who want an easy victory but shrink from a difficult one. I'm embarrassed to speak up for gutlessness, but it is a practical approach, and as a nation we often wisely chicken out of dangerous ventures. For example, North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq. North Korea has stronger connections to terrorist activity, runs a more advanced biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48 states. Yet there's a good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. If we tried, the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with nerve gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people. Iraq may well be different. President Bush has convinced me that there is no philosophical reason we should not overthrow the Iraqi government, given that Iraqis themselves would be better off, along with the rest of the world. But Mr. Bush has not overcome some practical concerns about an invasion. These concerns, which we need to focus on in the coming months, include: 1. Can we overthrow Saddam swiftly and at a reasonable cost in lives? Saddam will be smart enough this time not to send his 350,000 troops out into the desert where they are obvious targets. Instead he may keep them in the cities, surrounded by civilians, where the U.S. cannot easily bomb them. 2. Will an invasion trigger chemical attacks instead of preventing them? It's hard to see why Saddam, if left in power, would risk his future by using anthrax or smallpox for terrorism. But if we invade, he has every incentive to use 'em or lose 'em. In particular, military planners worry that he could send nerve gas raining down on Tel Aviv, in hopes of turning an invasion of Iraq into an Arab-Israeli war. There is force in the contrary argument that it's better to face a modest threat today than a nuclear-armed Saddam tomorrow; but hey, Saddam is 65 years old. Tomorrow he may fall into a coffin on his own. 3. Do we have a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq? We must not simply hand the country over to another general who comes from the 20 percent Sunni minority. Yet is the Bush administration really prepared, given its concerns about Shiite Iran, to hand power democratically to the 60 percent Shiite majority? 4. Is the Iraqi desert the best place to spend $55 billion? Fighting a war will cost perhaps $35 billion, and it will take $20 billion more to rebuild Iraq. That's more than the federal government spends in a year on elementary and secondary education and health research combined. 5. Will a war on Iraq set back the war on terror? Outrage around the Arab world at our invasion of Iraq could lead to a surge of anti-Americanism, growing support for Al Qaeda and the collapse of governments in Cairo and Riyadh. What if we won in Iraq but lost in Saudi Arabia? President Bush may well be able to meet these five tests. For example, if we can figure out how to win swiftly and establish a flourishing democracy in Iraq, that would boost the fight against terrorism, not set it back - and then I'm a jingoist too. So if Mr. Bush were really addressing these concerns, weighing them and then concluding that on balance it's worth an invasion, I'd be reassured. But instead it looks as if the president, intoxicated by moral clarity, has decided that whatever the cost, whatever the risks, he will invade Iraq. And that's not policy, but obsession.