I keep hearing an argument against the Iraq War that I really dislike, most recently this morning on Air America radio. The argument is that this is not a war bringing freedom and liberation to Iraq because we have not liberated other countries with equally awful dictators.
What they are saying is that you should not do a good thing in one place at one time unless you're willing to do the good thing in all places and all times. My attitude is that I'll take what I can get - if people are willing to do a good thing in a single place for selfish reasons, I'll be glad for that.
The argument is much more valid for questioning the motives of the American leadership that dragged us into this mess. I don't think freedom ranked very high in the motives of the war leaders or they would be more consistent in their approach towards freedom elsewhere.
The real reason for why the decision to begin the war in Iraq was wrong is because of its effects on the US, the world, and Iraq, not because of an unrealistic demand for consistency before taking steps that (theoretically) could make things better.
key: Iraq, ethics