The rest of Hiatt's piece reflected the dominant argument of the imperial press: because Saddam is a bad guy we are justified in doing what we want to get rid of him. In most non-dysfunctional families, such illogic is effectively countered by about the age of five or six, typically with the parental declaration that two wrongs don't make a right. At a later date, most people mature enough to understand that in mitigating evil one assumes the burden of not adding to it. It's the sort of moral consciousness that created things like laws and courts and constitutions.

In simpler contexts those who share the views of a George Bush or a Fred Hiatt are called vigilantes and generally frowned upon. Bush and Hiatt don't worry about that because they - just like other vigilantes - absolutely believe that they have the right solution and that therefore law and decent procedure are superfluous.

It is interesting that those who talk the most about introducing democracy and the rule of law to Iraq are the most indifferent to its requirements at home. The implicit defense for this is that Hussein is so evil that we have to delay practicing what we preach until we get rid of him. Further, it is often suggested that those who feel otherwise are insufficiently condemnatory of Hussein.

But his terrible acts do not easily or directly lead to the conclusion that George Bush and Fred Hiatt know what to do about it all and their certainty, far from being reassuring, is instead simply frightening. For example, one might prefer the advice of Major General Patrick Cordingley, who led allied armored troops in the first Gulf war, and, according to the BBC, thinks another war would be pointless as it would only lead to tens of thousands of Iraqis being needlessly killed. At the very least, Bush and Hiatt should let us know now just how many Iraqis they are willing to kill to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

It is part of the vigilante myth that hating someone else's evil is a higher virtue than practicing good oneself, and in fact makes the latter superfluous. It is an argument that is both sleazy and dangerous. And contrary to Hiatt's despicable claim, the client of those opposing the war in Iraq is not Saddam Hussein but the best of America's ideals. - SAM SMITH

Back to Idle Thoughts Are Often True