Since when did the ends justify the means?

I just read Paul Bremer's statements on CNN this morning. Says Mr. Bremer 'Still, Bremer added, ousting Saddam was "the right thing to do."'.

So...let's see if I've got this straight:

Say there's a guy on my block. He's a big, ugly brute that nobody likes. He keeps a bunch of nasty dogs in his yard (they might attack the children y'know). Worse, everybody thinks he's been breaking into cars in the area and stealing parts out of them. Many people had complained to the police, but nothing ever seemed to happen. They'd talk to him and go away, but he remained untouched.

So, one day, I get it into my head to 'return the favour' and go break into his house. Mostly just a bit of retribution - repossess the stereo he stole from my truck the week earlier or something. Once inside his house, lo, but I find no sign of any stereo stuff, but I do find in his basement a smallish pot plantation.

In response, I turn him over to the police, who prosecute him for possession with intent to traffick. Cool - I've just removed the nasty guy from the block, and a drug operation to boot! (Of course, there was no evidence at all of the stereo bits that we all _thought_ he had)

So...can I justifiably say that I "did the right thing"? - after all, we did get rid of a bad influence in the neighborhood. Or, was the act of breaking and entering his property every bit as wrong as what he was doing?

If I apply GWB logic, apparently the B&E on this guys house was justified - why - because we _thought_ he was doing something bad. In fact he was (growing pot), but not what he was accused of (stealing car audio bits).

However, reality and the logic of the current American Government are apparently at odds with one another. The fact is, in my fictional scenario above, I committed a crime against this individual (a B&E). Yes, his grow operation was illegal, and wrong, but so was the B&E. Neither is morally (or ethically) justifiable. The fact is, sooner or later, he would have slipped up and we would have noticed something suspicious about his habits or garbage. That should have been reported to the police _then_, and dealt with accordingly.

Now, granted, in the case of the Iraq situation, the UN is hardly "the police" - the UN doesn't have that kind of mandate or authority. However, the UN is a world body. If the evidence of malfeasance in Iraq was compelling enough, it should have been possible to achieve Security Council consensus.

For Bremer, and other officials to pronounce that deposing Saddam Hussein was "the right thing to do" irritates me - it is essentially saying that the ends justify the means. They do not, they cannot and will not. I won't argue that deposing Hussein was "bad" for Iraq - getting rid of despots is seldom "bad" in the long run. But let's be honest about it, and acknowledge that the reality found in Iraq did not match what was alleged. I'm not asking for much, just a bit of honesty. So far, exactly zero WMD's have been found in Iraq. (A couple of bombs made from old Sarin gas shells do not constitute a WMD programme)

Iraq was no threat outside its own borders (certainly, Hussein was a nasty little man when it came to his own people). At worst, he had a few SCUD-B missiles and conventional warheads lying about. So...can we quit trying to justify invading Iraq in terms of 'deposing Saddam Hussein was a Good Thing(tm)'?? The simple fact is that those who disagree with the reasons given for invading Iraq will continue to do so; those that agreed with them will continue to do so, and most of the world really doesn't give a damn any more.

At this point, the job for the United States is to clean up the mess it has made in Iraq, and leave the country in a better place than when they invaded. If the US can do that without it turning into a civil war, there's a chance for a degree of redemption on the world stage. Right now, the country looks like it's on the verge of crumbling into civil war. Will it be easy - no. It may take decades to accomplish - not the few short months that a single president has in their tenure. Whether Bush or Kerry wins this election, either man is doomed to wear the ball and chain of the Iraq conflict. The measure of success will be whether by the end of their term, things are more stable than they were at the start. (Not an easy feat, especially in a region of the world where foreign occupation has a painful history of failure)