Andrew Sullivan writes: One reason I find some of the grand-standing over WMDs increasingly preposterous is that it comes from people who really want to avoid the obvious: more and more it's clear that the liberation of Iraq was a moral obligation under any circumstances. People say to this argument that if we depose one dictator for these kinds of abuses, where will we stop? But the truth is: very few dictators have resorted to imprisonment or mass killing of children. Saddam's evil was on a world-historical scale. Ending it was one of the most prgressive things the United States and Britain and their allies have ever done.
Not that he's wrong, per se, but there's a better answer to when we will stop removing evil dictators from power: we won't! This isn't a slippery slope to something bad, it's a slippery slope to no more evil dictators. The only thing stopping us is what we *can* do, not what we'd like to.
if the US removes a dictator, what government will replace it?
if those people don't know how to do a democracy, then they won't have a democracy. so then another dictator would become the government.
the possible outcomes cannot fairly be describes as either "democracy" or "dictator" and that's it.
if the US removes several dictators, that will change the situation. people might go "hey if we get another dangerous, aggressive leader, the US will come back. let's get someone who isn't a violent thug to be in charge".