If there are alternatives – or supplements – to military action that are both (a) cheaper and (b) more effective than “war” shouldn’t we at least consider them?

The Vietnam war was sad, serious, and costly in lives and treasure.

During that war, another government official and I were considering those costs. He, an economist, calculated each Viet Cong killed cost us $500,000. We speculated whether we could just buy them off for $250,000 each instead.

It would save lives, cut costs by half, improve post-war relations and hasten Vietnam’s economic development.

The “proposal” was neither seriously offered nor considered. But doesn’t it start imaginative thinking about alternatives to war?

There is an alternative-dispute resolution training exercise in which two sides want one orange.

They consider fighting. When asked what they want to do with the orange, one group says it wants to sell the juice. The other wants to extract a pharmaceutical from the peelings.

Once “interests” (“we want the juice”) are substituted for “positions” (“we want the orange”) resolution is obvious.

We can’t mix apples with those oranges; few disputes are so easily resolved. (Although Israel’s desire for “security” and Palestine’s desire for “land” may suggest a possible division of the olive trees.) Nor are interests always obvious – even to the parties themselves.

After all, what are our interests – beyond security? What are the terrorists’ interests? Aren’t those things we’d benefit from knowing?

My cat, Beasley, sometimes bites me gently on the leg. He wants something, including attention, but doesn’t want to injure. Fill his food or water bowl and he stops. Ignore him and the bites become more painful.

Was there a time when the terrorists were just biting us gently on the leg?

Plane hijackings, hostage taking, and civil strife sometimes are the weapons of the unheard. What they often say they want is to express their concerns over radio or television. Indeed, the civil war may be fought outside, and over control of, a TV station.

No one suggests we should “reward” terrorists by giving them everything they want. They may want something totally unrealistic – like putting all governments on Earth under control of Muslim clerics.

On the other hand, if all they want is, say, just greater respect for their religion, that’s something to talk about.

We’re dealing with people, a disproportionate number of whom are living on a dollar a day, with impure water, inadequate food and housing, and no access to schools, democracy, health care or hope. That's something else to talk about.

War is hell – and hellishly expensive.

Suppose the war on terrorism costs $100 billion (plus our increased fear and lost civil liberties), and creates pockets of even more hostile terrorists.

Suppose for half that we could eliminate even more terrorism by investing in basic resources for those who now hate us (while continuing to prosecute the guilty actors).

Terrorist incidents decline; our access to Middle East oil becomes more secure.

Should we reject even thinking about such options out of spite – or our legitimate anger – because we need to “teach them a lesson”?

How much of this war is because the defense establishment needs enemies to justify defense budgets, and how much because war truly is the best way to achieve our interests?

It’s hard to conduct even an unsuccessful “war” against globally disbursed people who are not a nation, look like our allies, don’t wear uniforms, won’t show up on a battlefield, and will willingly commit suicide. Especially when we’re fighting Saudi terrorists by bombing to make the rubble bounce in Afghanistan.

Maybe war is the best response.

But might there be a better way? Think about it.

Once we get the orange juice, are the peelings worth a war?
_____________________________

Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City is a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission and teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law.