Two interesting new articles in Slate. The first, Fighting Africa's Saddam, is about the increasingly tense situation in Zimbabwe, and concludes with these startling words:

An op-ed in the opposition Daily News compared Mugabe's rule to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Titled, "Violent regimes leave no option but war," the commentary said the coalition invasion of Iraq was "desperately needed ... for the good of the people" in order to remove "a heinous regime." It continued, "That is certainly the case I would put for removing the present regime in Zimbabwe." Britain's Independent reported that there is a new catchphrase among Zimbabwe's unemployed youth: "Mr. Bush, when are you coming to liberate us?"

The rest of the article is about strikes and walk-outs against the government. There is hope yet for that country. It's funny, though, how people who have experienced tyranny first hand seem to see the war in Iraq quite differently than many in the west do. I have jokingly said that the army should stop in Zimbabwe on the way home after the war. I don't think it is necessary, but our government needs to do everything short of outright conflict to help these movements around the world. Especially in Iran.

The second article, Lay off Chalabi, by Hitchens ends with some interesting thoughts as well:

Thus, in the first few days of the vile colonial occupation, we have seen the green flag of Shiite populism and the red banner and hammer and sickle raised under the aegis of the U.S. Marine Corps. It could be that the full news of what has happened in Khomeini's former Iran and in the former Soviet bloc has not completely penetrated Iraqi society. Clearly, history's ironies have not exhausted themselves. But I mention this for a reason. What if one-tenth of the energy of the anti-war movement was now diverted to helping the secular and democratic forces in Iraq and Kurdistan? To giving assistance to a free press, helping to sponsor political prisoners and searches for the missing, providing money and materials for human rights and women's groups? Maybe a few of the human shields and witnesses for peace could return and pitch in with the reconstruction? I know a few such volunteers, chiefly medical ones, but not many when compared to the amazing expenditure of time and effort that went on postponing the liberation. It's just a thought. Maybe something will come of it.

I think he is being intentionally naive. Their enemy is America. (jeez I sound like a right-winger there, so be it.)