Here's a candidate for humanitarian invervention (particularly if you belive Iraq was one): Uzbekistan. According to this article in the Guardain, Ambassador accused after criticising US, the government of Uzbekistan—an important ally in the war against whatever it is we are fighting, and which receives a US bribe subsidy of half a billion dollars per year, sounds like, well, Iraq.
The UK embassador to Uzbekistan was undiplomatic about certain local customs, like the jailing thousands of political prisoners, and the government boiling some of them to death. So, he's in trouble. His friends blame pressure from the US. The UK denies the pressure (but they would, wouldn't they?). The Guardian suggests that instead of being outspoken about the Uzbekistan's abuses, the US government supports the regime.
The important thing here is not the details of a British ambassador's career. The important thing is what this reminds us about the side effects of the Administration's obsession with Iraq. Add the entrenchment of the murderous regime in Uzbekistan to the calculus the next time someone explains how the world is better off without Saddam.
How many other murderous regimes is it worth entrenching to get rid of one?
