If anything good can come out of the dangerous crisis in the Middle East, it may be a greater sense of the grim realities of international conflict.
People are starting to ask: What if Iraq's Saddam Hussein launches missiles with chemical warheads at American soldiers? Many of those who ask once ridiculed the idea of missile defense systems, which they laughingly called "Star Wars."These clever people argued that the Soviets had enough missiles to overwhelm any missile defense system. Maybe. But the Soviets are not the only military force to think about, as Saddam Hussein illustrates.
If we had just enough missile defense to stop Iraq's fleet of chemical warfare missiles, it could make all the difference in the world. But when missile defense was proposed in Congress, years ago, there was a sarcastic "Beam me up, Scotty" from House Speaker Jim Wright. It was cute politics at the time, but it may not be so cute now.
Military defense is a matter of life and death, not only for the troops in the field but also for the whole society. With Middle East oil being the lifeblood of Western economies, military force - and the will to use it - is necessary to defend a whole civilization. Yet the military is under serious political handicaps.
The most effective use of military force is to have it so ready, and so overwhelming, that nobody challenges you in the first place. The Roman Peace in ancient times and the peace that existed when Great Britain was the overwhelming power in more recent times were classic examples.
But this kind of peace requires spending money on military defense before there is any immediate threat on the horizon. It means spending money on military technology, even when you are already technologically ahead of any potential adversary, just so you stay ahead as others try to catch up. In short, it means thinking ahead and looking out for the future.
Unfortunately, the politics of modern democratic nations is preoccupied with the short run, with programs that pay off politically by the next election. Even more unfortunately, undemocratic aggressors know this.
Clearly Saddam Hussein knows that he cannot match the United States militarily in the long run. But he probably figures he will not have to if the pain he can inflict in the short run is enough to force a standoff that leaves him in good shape.
Pacifists have a lot of blood on their hands - millions of lives in World War II alone, both soldiers and civilians who died because their governments were politically prevented from building enough defensive or deterrent forces. Today the self-right-eous "anti-war" element has made war more profitable for aggressors by making it unlikely that serious retaliation will follow, such as the destruction of their regimes. When aggressors know that the worst they have to fear is a standoff, look for more Saddam Husseins, in more places around the world.