The dominating question in the news over the last months has been Bush's plans to attack Iraq to obtain 'regime change.' World opinion seem to be split between conservative Americans on one side, and leftist Americans on the other side, along with most of the rest of the world.
However, world opinion is also split, between those who do not want to attack Iraq in either case, and those who will try stringent arms inspections first, and are open to the option of war later.
My question is: on what do people base their opinions on this subject?
Quite undecided on this subject myself, I wanted to try to create a decision tree, vaguely modelled on what I learned in business school way back when. In it, probabilities and values (price, if you will) are applied to the various outcomes of whatever decisions are made. Rationally, you should go for the decision with the highest number.
As I see it, the west can choose inaction, a stringent arms control regime that retains the option of war later, and an all-out attack now. What will be the consequences of all options here are the subject of fierce debates.
The problem of course remains. What is the "value" of a successful vs an unsuccessful war with Iraq? I have tried to attach some values, of course open for accusations of being pretty arbitrary, leaving this a pretty futile exerise in Excel. Also, what are the probabilies? What is the chance that Saddam will remain passive and un-threatening to its neighbours and to the west if he is not removed?
As I see it, the "what-if" quality of this tool makes it valuable in making you aware of the choices and options available. Fill in your preferences and see how the numbers change.
Here is a simple example decision tree following the so-called "laplace critera:" not knowing the probabilities, we attach similar probablities to them.
Does it tell us something we don't already know? Not really. First, many will not agree that chances for a successful and an unsuccessful war are not equal. Some will say that the "values" for consequences above are unreasonable one way or another.
After playing around with the spreadsheet for a while, I will have to say it strengthened my own tentative conclusion that we should first try arms inspections, but that this requires a real, credible threat of force.
But perhaps everybody will find their own preconceived opinions confirmed after applying their own values and probabilities.
