A while back I discussed this essay by George Orwell on Ghandi, in which Orwell finds the ultra-pacifism of Ghandi ultimately repulsive, including his views on the Holocaust:

...Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly.

Well, this morning on C-Span, there was a fellow who had written a book about Ghandi (I can't remember his name now, and can't find it on their site). Anyway, he noted that many people had criticized Ghandi for his naive view of Hitler. Ghandi thought that Hitler could be reasoned with (and he wasn't the only person who made this mistake).

The guest noted that Ghandi had been lucky in a sense, to have squared off against an adversary who had some sense of conscience and guilt, one that could be reasoned with. The guest was of the opinion that Ghandi's technique of Satyagraha, or "passive resistance" could only be used in some situations, not all...against some adversaries, not all.

So I ask, how do you make the distinction?

Several of the callers referenced Iraq. Can Saddam Hussein be dealt with rationally and peacefully?

How would Ghandi propose to deal with him? How would he weigh the moral cost of leaving Iraq under a repressive, brutal regime as opposed to killing thousands of innocents to free the rest?