Sufficient casus belli

Once again, Thomas Friedman, pointman on the Middle East for the New York Times, gets it almost right. The subject, in today's op-ed, is captured in the title, "A War for Oil?" Mr. Friedman captures the sufficiency argument (as it relates to oil) for ousting the evil Saddam regime in Iraq with this quotation from Michael Mandelbaum of Johns Hopkins:

Up to now, Saddam has used his oil wealth not to benefit his people, but to wage war against all his neighbors, build lavish palaces and acquire weapons of mass destruction.

'Nuff said; Mr. Mandelbaum is right, and Mr. Friedman apparently agrees. But then Friedman goes off into Democratic la-la land, with complaints about energy conservation, big bad SUVs, selfishness, and how we really, really ought to oust Saddam in order to "build a more progressive, democratizing Arab state [in Iraq]."

Well, wouldn't it be nice, also, if everyone were polite, used hankies, and always said "please" and "thank you". The world is a harsh place; let us not be stayed from doing what is right and good because it won't have the absolute best result. If we oust Saddam and install anyone else who knows that he must not attack his neighbors, kill his own people, or develop weapons of mass destruction, that would be sufficient victory.

Wish I had a Humvee; just because it would annoy people like Mr. Friedman.