'I Don't Think That It Was Worth It'

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof appears to mean well, but
the poor man just seems to be lost in an intellectual fog. Just back
from Iraq, he acknowledges the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime
and tells the story (with a grotesque picture) of Mathem Abid Ali, an
Iraqi man whose ear was cut off by Baathist thugs. But although he
acknowledges Iraqis are enjoying a "giddy new freedom," he says of
their liberation: "I don't think that it was worth it." Worth what, he
never spells out, offering only one complaint:

If we were willing to rescue Iraqis, should we intervene
(multilaterally) to stop the far worse bloodshed in Congo--where 3.3
million people have died since 1998? Or in Liberia, to try to shore up
West Africa before it crumbles as well?

I'm suspicious of any answer that is too quick and too glib. But my
fear is that the mistakes and poor planning that are now miring us in
Iraq will unfairly discredit humanitarian intervention more broadly,
even when saving people pleading to be liberated. That would be
another terrible cost of Iraq.

So the argument against liberating Iraq is that it may end up making
it harder to justify humanitarian interventions in places where
America has no strategic interest?

BEST OF THE WEB