The right reason to invade Iraq was because Saddam was weak and it was cheap to take him out. If we could get Kim Jong Il and Bob Mugabe at acceptable cost I’d be in favor of those ones too.
So Tim Bray thinks that it’s OK to knock off the leaders of sovereign nations if the price is right. This sets a dangerous precedent, which is illustrated by the Executive Order banning assassinations[1]: if you do it, it’s OK for the other guy to do it. Do we want a world where we off each other’s presidents/premiers/prime ministers until we run out of candidates?
I’m not sure what to make of a _Canadian_ making this case. Nothing against our northern neighbor: I gaze wistfully at it on the map when I reflect on how weird things are getting. But there’s a hint of bullying by proxy in that line of thinking. If Canadians were opposed, by and large, to this misadventure, why does extending it into Korea and Zimbabwe make any sense? And I don’t see any groundswell of support for a global house-cleaning in Canada.
While Tim may be justifiably sympathetic with the victims of Saddam Hussein’s regime, it’s important to remember that he was ‘the enemy of our enemy’ (Iran, in the Khomeini era) and was supported by prior US administrations. As FDR said of Somoza and some folks are updating to refer to Saddam, “he may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”
Do we never learn from our mistakes? Do we even willing to admit them?
fn1. CNN.com – U.S. policy on assassinations – Nov. 4, 2002:
According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence “finding” instructing the CIA to engage in “lethal covert operations” to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.
White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence “finding” is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists.