Iraq Compromise(?)

Yeah, I have my opinions, too, about who's right ane wrong in all this talk about war with Iraq. But I hope I have removed them from this idea, which is not about who is or isnt an idiot/madman, but about how we might arrive at a better place than where we are now.

I begin by taking both sides at their word. Of course there are layers upon layers of subordinate motives, but having declared an official motive, each side will feel some obligation to back it up.

The "hawks" say that we must remove Saddam from power, now and not later, because every additional day is an additional risk that he will do something horribly regrettable (e.g., delivering a WMD to New York City's harbor, or acquiring the technology to hold the entire Middle East hostage, etc.). It is taken for granted by both sides, I think, that removing Saddam will require a military intervention. These hawks believe the "doves" are engaging in risky wishful thinking and Chamberlain-style appeasement.

The doves say that a realistic assessment of the risks leads one to conclude that military intervention in Iraq is a much riskier move than continued efforts at containment. They say they can point to several years of successful containment, some recent progress by UNMOVIC, and the lack of any "smoking guns" as a rational basis for their position.

Obviously, somebody's right and somebody's wrong -- either Saddam poses the bigger risk as head of Iraq, or the consequences of miltary action poses the bigger risk. There may well be many fools involved, but it is also possible to find rational, responsible, intelligent people pushing either side of the debate.

So I wonder if the responsible people on either side would consider this a fair compromise:

1) In response to the seriousness of purpose indicated by the doves in no. 2, below, the hawks agree not to engage in any military action in Iraq (short of continuing enforcement of the no-fly zones) fo the duration of the agreement.
2) In respect for the seriousness of the fears of the hawks, and as assurance against their pledge in no. 1 above, the dove nations agree to indemnify any nation that suffers any terrorist or military attack that can be conclusively linked to elements within Iraq.
3) Prior to signing the agreement, both sides agree, by arbitration if necessary, on a reasonable estimate of the cost of a war in Iraq. If, at the end of some appointed time (say, 10 years?) or the end of Saddam's regime (including his sons or other like-minded successors), there has been no attack that could be conclusively linked to elements within Iraq, then the hawk nations will pay the dove nations an agreed-upon portion of the estimated cost of the war ("peace dividends" in return for their saving the hawk nations from incurring the expense).
4) Nations may switch their status from hawk to dove or vice versa at any time during the agreement, depending on the course of events. Switching from dove to hawk means trading your responsibility for your share of the indemnification, if any, for a shared responsibility in paying peace dividends (if any). The reverse is true of switching from hawk to dove, except that nations may not escape liability for a share of peace dividends by switching from hawk to dove in the last year of the agreement.
5) If all nations eventually become hawks, war is declared, after which no nation is responsible for any indemnification. If all nations eventually become doves, the agreement is ended and all nations holding hawk status during the previous 365 days are responsible for paying peace dividends to the dove nations. 6) If events warrant (e.g., Iran attacks Iraq, Iraq invades Saudi Arabia, etc.), signatory nations may re-convene to void or re-negotiate the agreement.

I can't imagine this wouldn't be full of problems, but do you think it could be a way of approaching the impasse that could at least be more productive than the way things are going now?

N.B. Please, this is not a call for comments mindlessly bashing one side or the other. There are plenty of other forums for that. I would, however appreciate comments about problems or possibilities associated with the idea.

Also, I do not mean to suggest that lost lives can ever be indemnified by cash payments. It's only a way to make sure the doves take their responsibility seriously, and to assure the hawks know that they do.