The defenders of the Iraq war sometimes try to have it both ways. Saddam was a brutal dictator who terrorized the Iraqi people on a daily basis. So, despite the violence in the aftermath of his overthrow, Iraq simply has to be better off without him. On the other hand, the violence in Iraq is so great (some are even mentioning “genocide”) that, absent the US, all hell would break loose. So which is it: better or worse than under Saddam?
I think the answer is pretty clear. Let me give the floor to Bishop Warduni of Baghdad, who has so eloquently voiced the suffering of the Iraqi Christian people:
“Saddam there was dictatorship, the wars… but the people lived fairly well. Today there is the total insecurity, one can’t be sure in the morning of coming home in the evening, it seems absurd but that’s how it is.”
Yes, Saddam was a thug. But was he any worse, on a daily basis, than the kinds of venal leaders we observe in so many countries? Should the US invade and depose each one of them? How about Kim Jong Il, who about as bad as one can get. But nobody seriously proposes a war against North Korea, suffering though the Korean people are. Why not? Could it possibly be because of a little thing the Church calls the “disproportionate evils” that may arise? Some people need to realize that true and final justice is for God alone. The US is most certainly not God.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In