The Probabilities of War

I can't think of any other scenarios to avoid war. To calculate the likelihood of war, I subtract the percentages of "no war" from 100%. 100% - 1% - 1% - 10% - 10% = 78%, indicating war is "probable."

William Saletan at Slate.com does a similar daily analysis and tracks the results over time. As of Feb. 21, he places the "chance of invasion" at 95%, up from 50% in early December.

An Ireland-based gambling Web site will let you bet on Hussein's survival (click on the Politics/Current Events tab). As of Feb. 24, punters give a probability of Hussein deposed at 25% by March 2003, 70% by June 2003.

Assessing Motivations

Many in the peace movement and the Arab world believe that this war is about oil. Although Iraq holds the second-largest reserves after Saudi Arabia, it's well down the list of 25 countries currently supplying energy to the U.S.

Hussein would have cheerfully sold the U.S. all the oil Iraq could pump, if only the U.S. had allowed the U.N. to drop sanctions. Iraq's infrastructure is degraded to 20% of capacity, and Iraq apparently plans to set fire to its oil fields once war starts. After Canada, Venezuela is the second-largest supplier of energy (oil and gas) to the U.S.; it would be more logical to invade Venezuela if oil were the only motivation. I assess "oil" at 10% -- very unlikely.

Personal vendetta by Bush 43 on behalf of Bush 41: 1%, nearly impossible. Even if this were true, which I doubt, I can't imagine that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would sign on to such a venture.

War as "humanitarian effort" on behalf of Iraqi people: 10%, very unlikely. The U.S. and U.N. have cheerfully ignored humanitarian disasters in Africa (particularly Rwanda), Cambodia, North Korea, and China during the Cultural Revolution. The U.S./European intervention in the civil wars of former Yugoslavia (Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo) marks one of the few times of military intervention to protect civilians, and that happened only after the massacre of tens of thousands.

War on Iraq is part of the antiterrorist campaign. The link between Iraq and al Qaeda remains unproven. However, there's information that Iraq has shipped weapons and scientists to Syria and Libya, and a definite concern that biological, chemical and missiles are floating around, possibly falling into terrorist hands. Iraq is a California-sized country in the center of the Middle East, bordered by six countries. Seizing and garrisoning Iraq would allow U.S. forces to monitor and disrupt terrorist activities throughout the region -- it's not just al Qaeda we have to worry about. I rank this motivation at about 75%: very probable.

---

David Edwards is a portfolio manager and president of Heron Capital Management, a New York management firm. Edwards was a contributor to Harry Domash's Fire Your Stock Analyst: Analyzing Stocks On Your Own available at Amazon. At the time of publication, his firm was held positions in General Electric mentioned in this column, though positions may change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy or sell stocks. Edwards appreciates your feedback and invites you to send it to David Edwards.

TheStreet.com has a revenue-sharing relationship with Amazon.com under which it receives a portion of the revenue from Amazon purchases by customers directed there from TheStreet.com.