Iraq: war vs. containment

Three Chicago economists (Davis, Murphy, and Topel) have produced a highly controversial paper, as mentioned by R-Squared in a previoius commentary "Chicago economists produce a paper on how war in Iraq helps save Iraqi lives". 

hey evaluate –from the standpoint of 2003—the expected costs of going to war in Iraq versus the costs of continuing the containment policy.  All in all, “going to war was the best decision”.

Policy decisions of such magnitude are usually made under considerable uncertainty, a tight timing, and substantial stress.  Economics can improve the decision making process: by seriously and consistently evaluating all alternatives under the table.  Maybe the best contribution of their paper is that it clearly establishes that the alternative of going to war was not doing nothing.  In fact, the alternative was continued containment or other options.  These had costs, and serious decision-making should consider them as well.

How do the authors arrive to these findings?  As for the benefits and costs of war, they evaluate:

· X number of Iraqi deaths now, versus Y later
· Upfront costs of war, versus prolonged costs of containment
· A big shock to Iraqis today versus a long period of continued economic misfortune
· The humanitarian costs of continued repression under Sadam

Do they do a good job of evaluating the alternatives?  Judge for yourself.