"Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. I am glad he is now on trial for crimes against humanity. But, opposition to a dictator is not the measure I use when deciding whether to send our men and women in uniform off to war and possible death"

In this quote, Peter DeFazio succinctly catches a nuanced stance on military intervention and the intricacies that accompany decisions of war. DeFazio starts by acknowledging the generally acknowledged cruelty and tyranny of Saddam Hussein, consequently establishing commonalities with those who supported eliminating Hussein from power. By identifying Hussein a "ruthless autocrat", DeFazio accepts the agreement view that saw him as a violator of human rights and a destabilizing force in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, DeFazio's subsequent declarations present a critical point of view on military interventions. He expresses approval that Hussein is being held liable through a trial for criminal activities versus humankind. This acknowledgment underlines a belief in worldwide justice systems and legal accountability over unilateral military actions. DeFazio differentiates his support for Hussein's trial from blanket approval of military action, showing a preference for judicial over militant means of addressing worldwide wrongdoing.

The heart of DeFazio's quote depends on his articulation of the criteria-- or lack thereof-- for devoting soldiers to combat. He pointedly states that "opposition to a totalitarian is not the measure I use" when choosing to take part in warfare. This shows a more comprehensive critique of interventionist policies that are based loosely on moral premises without totally thinking about the ramifications and costs. DeFazio emphasizes that the choice to send out military workers into potentially lethal scenarios needs more rigid measures and criteria than simply opposing dictatorial programs. The subtext recommends a require a more strategic, perhaps restrained method to international disputes where the risks to military personnel, diplomatic relationships, and national interests are thoroughly weighed versus moral imperatives.

DeFazio's stance uses insight into disputes over American diplomacy where ethical considerations, national interests, and military technique intersect. His viewpoint welcomes reflection on how nations can stabilize justice and practical considerations in their foreign policy choices.