Morality and war

I've written in the past about the duplicitous language of the Bush people. Bush is very clever at misleading us. This morning, I want to look at a trick of his I haven't written about yet. This device pulls one element out of a concept and ignores all others. Here's what I mean:

In defending our attack on Iraq, conservatives argue that our intentions of removing a mass murderer and promoting democracy were highly moral. But if we have learned anything from this war, it should alert us to be wary of such oversimplified claims of moral clarity.

Even if we grant purity of intentions, this is shallow moral reasoning. We should judge morality in three dimensions -- intentions, means and consequences -- and this war fails on the last two counts. Imagine that I offer to drive your child home after a party. I ignore the slick road conditions, drive too fast, skid off the road and your child is killed. I can plead good intentions of trying to get your child home quickly, but by my neglect of appropriate means and the full range of possible consequences produces a catastrophe that is not excusable even if I had good intentions.

To defend this (or any future war) on the basis of the moral clarity of our intentions is impoverished one-dimensional moral reasoning. Whatever the president's motives, his inadequate attention to means and the full range possible consequences makes this an unjust war. Can the man who wages an immoral war be a moral man? Not in this case. He was warned that it would turn out as it has and he went forward with no plan for the slippery roads of Iraq.

We should constantly challenge and question his assertions.

These are the same people who lecture us on moral behavior in our private lives. Now isn't that amazing.