Jerome Slater holds forth in today's Buffalo News with a column that could have been written a year ago. Indeed, the article is accompanied by a photo of dispirited US troops--taken a year ago. And we even get the dreaded Q-word in the headline. (Quagmire!) Despite the undeniable success of the Surge, Dr. Slater chooses to trot out the same old tired arguments people have been making for the past fve years to support immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Could it be that his critics have become so obsessed with George W. Bush that they've taken on the very qualities they find so odious in him? I.E., an inability to change direction despite changes in circumstances?

Slater, who is best-known for papers he has written defending Yasser Arafat, cites six major costs and consequences of the Iraq war to support his larger point that we've already lost, and presumably should get on with surrendering.

1.) The Human Costs

Rightfully so, Slater goes straight to the heart of the matter--namely the cost in lives; nearly 4000 soldiers, 1000 civilians killed, perhaps 30000 wounded on the American side. Slater then goes on to cite a discredited Lancet story that inflates the Iraqi total to something like a million war-related deaths. More beleivable estimates hover somewhere around 30000, which is terrible enough.

Can anything justify this kind of loss of life? My position is that if the effort prevents an even larger loss of life, that may make it worthwhile. We can know with some certainty what the costs are associated with a course of action we have taken, what we cannot ever know is what would have happened if we had made a different choice. Perhaps some perspective is in order.

The loss of our soldiers to actual combat fatalities is much lower than 4000. Many have lost their lives in accidents, which unfortunately are part of life in the military whether we're at war or not. In five years of war in Iraq, total fatalities have averaged about 800 per year. During the '90's the military averaged about 1000 deaths per year, without being at war in Iraq. We lost about 3000 innocent civilians in one day on 9/11.

Here at home during the five years of war, we've probably lost something like 20000 young people to violence in our cities. Which is more regrettable?

What would have happened had we not gone to Iraq? Isn't it possible, if not likely, that the course of the war on terror would have gone much worse? Let's imagine that instead of going to Iraq, we pursued bin Laden into Pakistan, as so many war critics said we should have.

Might that not have provoked a much worse outcome? Isn't it fairly easy to see how radical Islamists could have toppled Musharaf, gotten control of Pakistan's nukes and maybe even used them on our forces?

Or, failing that, had we backed down after massing our troops in Kuwait, wouldn't that have emboldened all our various adversaries to ramp up their own WMD programs?

Maybe it's time to acknowledge that the situation in Iraq as of 2003 was not about to resolve itself on its own. Iraq was under UN sanctions dating back to the first Gulf War. Saddam was massively violating those sanctions, (with the help of our "allies") while robbing the Oil-for-Food program blind. And while we were unable to find stockpiles of weapons, the Duelfer report, and Saddam himself have indicated that he was ready and able to restart those programs the moment sanctions were lifted. Let's not forget that the sanctions themselves were responsible for killing tens of thousands of the most vulnerable Iraqi's. Namely children.

I think it's fairly easy to see that other courses of action frequently advocated by Iraq war critics such as Slater could easily have resulted in greater loss of life. Just one more attack on US soil could have done it. Conflict in Pakistan could have done it. An emboldened (in the wake of US backdown on Iraq) Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, or bin Laden could have done it.

In any event, a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would almost certainly lead to a very large loss of life.

2.) The Economic Costs

War costs money. Slater uses the figure of $1.3 trillion, which I won't dispute. It's wrong, however, to consider all of that as squandered. Money paid to our troops, for example, is not exactly wasted. And much of that sum goes back into our economy as payments to US firms (the evil military-industrial complex). I've seen estimates of the economic loss from 9/11, just one day, at about $1 trillion. And that was pure loss--destroyed property, lost business, higher insurance premiums, devastated careers, the list goes on and on.

Although it won't be easy or quick, our effort in Iraq could lead to a more stable, peaceful Middle East, which in turn should lower the risks of more 9/11's. Maybe that's worth a lot of money.

3.) Worsening Terrorism

Although he cites none, Slater asserts, "virtually all experts on terrorism agree that the Iraq War has given the next generation of Islamic fanatics both the motivation and the practical military experience to carry out new acts of global terrorism."

Given that they were willing to fly planes into buildings before we toppled Saddam, I'm not so sure Islamic fanatics were short on motivation in the first place. As for their practical experience, most of that amounts to being killed by the US military. If anything, I imagine the experience of actually going up against our soldiers has not been terrifically motivating. People don't usually get motivated by getting their brains blown out.

He goes on to say that the fact that we have not been attacked in six and a half years is, "not because of the Iraq War but despite it". That's nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion. The facts are that during the nineties, when we took a law enforcement approach to fighting terror, we were attacked about every eighteen months. Since 9/11, and going on the military offensive against terror, zero attacks.

What do you think, gentle reader? Coincidence?

4.) Declining Military Capability

I'll just ask this. If Islamic fanatics have gained practical military experience by getting slaughtered by our troops, isn't it possible that our guys have learned a thing or two also?

Yes, we need to replace equipment, and yes, we need a bigger military, but reenlistment rates remain very strong, and we now have experienced, battle-hardened troops. Not to mention the ascendance of new leaders like David Petraeus, who have demonstrated an ability to succeed. That's pretty important.

Why is it when decrying the negative effects that the war has had on our military, no one ever mentions what the effect would be of making Iraq a loss? Do you think the military would appreciate throwing away the sacrifices of 4000 of their brethren? How would that affect morale?

When we fight, people die and equipment gets destroyed. That's why we have a military. If our military can't handle a small-scale conflict like Iraq, we're in serious trouble.

5.) Nuclear Proliferation

Slater proposes the rather dubious proposition that the Iraq War has sent the message to our other adversaries that they should rush to get nukes to avert an American attack. I think that the message of the war is more like, "If we think you are engaged in WMD, we're coming to get you." Admittedly, that threat has been diluted by the aftermath of the Iraq operation, but the fault for that lies much more with the anti-war Americans who have done so much to undermine US policy.

In any case, it has always been true that acquiring nukes will strengthen one's strategic position. That would have been true regardless of whether we invaded Iraq.

6.) National Reputation

I'm not so sure our reputation is so severely damaged. France, for example, just elected an overwhelmingly pro-American leader. Likewise, in Germany, the anti-American Schroeder is gone, replaced by the more friendly Merkel.

Besides, while of course we would prefer to be popular, we can never let ourselves be put in the position of jeopardizing our own national security just for the sake of remaining popular. I think any of us would prefer to be safe than popular.

As I suggested at the top, I think it's ironic that some of Bush's harshest critics seem to posess the very qualities that they so frequently criticize in him; namely an inability to change course in the face of new evidence, a failure to consider all the possibilities, and a lack of honesty.

Dr. Slater does get one thing right, in my judgment. This is likely to be a long, drawn out conflict with Islamic fanatics. Taking them on in Iraq is one part of that. We can, and should have a healthy debate about whether that remains a worthwhile course of action. Let's also strive to remain open-minded and intellectually honest in that debate.

Finally, perhaps one way to measure would be to evaluate the six variables enumerated in Dr. Slater's piece, but from the perspective of al Qaeda. We can perhaps take some comfort from the fact that in each of these categories, the cost to al Qaeda for having taken us on in Iraq is immeasurably worse for them than for us, provided we don't lose heart and walk away.