“If you’re doing one thing wrong, then nothing else you do can be right” Tuesday, May 17th 2005
Times journalist Martin Samuel snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. In his latest column he starts off well, pointing out what a sadistic monster the Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov is, and how appalling it is that American uses him as a convenient ally. But then he says:
There are those who believe that, whatever its motives, the war in Iraq can be justified by free elections and the removal of Saddam. Yes, but only if that policy is consistent.
To see how stupid this is, imagine a more humdrum situation where the logic is clearer. Suppose a local policeman has caught a vicious crook X and put him away, but he’s also engaging in corrupt practises with another crook Y. We don’t say that he was wrong to have busted X just because he’s corruptly dealing with Y. We say that his policy against X was right, but his dealings with Y were wrong.
So yes, the US should be consistent (although even to say this is to ignore the complexities of the situation). But that doesn’t make it wrong to have acted against Saddam.
I also note that Samuel engages in the old “But the US armed Saddam” argument. But that isn’t a reason not to act against him, that’s all the more reason to remove him. If you bear some of the responsibility for him being in his position, then you bear some of the responsibility for correcting this wrong. If the local cop has helped Y become the local kingpin, that’s all the more reason why that cop should do something himself about Y.
