“The only relevant question regarding an evil madman like Saddam is whether you let him continue or whether you stop him.”
Untrue. Cost is another relevant question. A wise leader always balances the benefits against the costs of any action. You may “stop him” with the informed consent of people who believe that the benefits exceed the costs. Then they believe that “stopping him” is worth the effort.
Americans did not believe that the benefits exceeded the costs of unilaterally stopping genocide in Rwanda. Americans did not believe that “stopping them” was worth the cost in Cambodia. Hence, we did not “stop them.” Americans do not believe that “stopping them” is worth the cost in North Korea. Hence, we have not “stopped them.” Americans do not currently believe that the benefits exceed the costs of unilaterally stopping genocide in the Sudan. Hence, we do not stop them. We seek multilateral solutions, which are often ineffective.
By using disinformation, you change the equation. You no longer have informed consent. You have cheated your constituents, and you have cheated your allies. When you invade under false pretenses, you have lost your moral authority, and your legacy is doomed.
Germany invaded its neighbors under false pretenses. North Korea invaded South Korea under false pretenses. Iraq invaded Kuwait under false pretenses. The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses. Bush is in rather poor company.
Do you sincerely believe most Americans would have supported the invasion without the threat of Iraqi WMD or collusion with Al Qaeda, when most Americans were more concerned with the hunt for Osama Bin Laden? If so, there would have been no need to deliberately misrepresent the Iraqi threat.
