Sullivan’s moral relativism

Grrrrr…. What is it about Andrew Sullivan and his need to generate moral relativism between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein? In this post he approvingly quotes the following article, which appeared in the Australian newspaper The Age:

The anti-war website Iraqbodycount.net estimates that between 11,487 and 13,458 Iraqis have been killed since the start of the war. Added to that are 1049 coalition deaths listed. That is a staggering 14,507 deaths since March 19 last year - a horrendous average of 28.5 people, real human beings, a day for the 509 days.

How could this ever be justified? Wouldn't Iraq have been better off without this?

It is estimated that Saddam killed between 500,000 and 1 million of his own people in the 13 years since the Gulf War, not including the effects of the sanctions. The lower number averages out to be 105 a day.

Assuming Saddam had stayed in power, as the anti-war movement would have had, and assuming his regime did not fundamentally change, Saddam could have killed between 53,445 and 106,890 innocent people in the same 509 days.

In other words, the war probably cost between 38,938 and 92,383 fewer lives than the so-called peace would have cost.

Sullivan then manages to simultaneously be morally correct and a moral midget in the same breath:

Couldn't agree more. It's just that using the standard of Saddam Hussein is not exactly morally reassuring about our current conduct.

WTF? Why does Sullivan feel the need to equate Saddam’s decades-long political homicide against the Iraq people with the deaths—whether by collateral damage, the killing of Iraqi jihadists or the killing of the Baathist holdouts—by our military?

I know that Sullivan understands that Saddam’s political homicide was an integral part of Saddam’s policy.

I also know Sullivan understands that the U.S.’ policy is—as much as practical—to avoid causing civilian causalities. Put another way, this contrast shows that the U.S.’ policy is the reverse of Saddam’s and I know Sullivan must understand this.

I also know that Sullivan understands that most of the Iraqis killed were insurgents; that they were killed in combat and could have avoided death by simply not taking up arms against the U.S.

So why—given all of these blindingly obvious distinctions between the U.S. and Saddam—does Sullivan feel then need to disparage the number of Iraqis who were saved from being tortured to death by Saddam by insinuating that the deaths that have since occurred are somehow equivalent?