I haven’t been talking about the war here, and there’s a couple of reasons for that: you don’t come here to read about it, and I know I’m not alone in needing to have something else to read when I’m surrounded by the incredible frustration of other people’s uninformed opinions. And that’s another reason: despite all my classes in ethical theory and despite listening to the news every day, I don’t consider myself all that well-informed about it, because it’s tremendously hard to find a reputable source right now. The mainstream media are just cheerleaders for Bush, but most of the anti-war groups are no better: college students and twentysomethings protesting for the sake of protesting, unable (for the most part) to give a coherent account of their arguments against the war. The war rubs me the wrong way, too, but I haven’t been out protesting because I haven’t felt comfortable waving signs about something I didn’t have all the information about.

That said, I have after all studied all that ethical theory, so I may as well put it to work. I’ve been following the news and talking things over with friends whose input I value, and over the past week or so I suppose I’ve started to put my finger on exactly why I’ve felt uncomfortable about all of this: I feel like regardless of whether or not the war is just, the US isn’t going about things for the right reasons. What’s bothered me the most has been the fact that while it may be true that Hussein ought to be removed from power, and I think that it probably is true, the “freedom of the Iraqi people” has nothing to do with why Bush has chosen to fight this war. The American government doesn’t just step in whenever human rights are being violated or people are suffering: I’ve studied enough about Tibet to realize that, and Tibet is one representative example from countless similar situations. I’m not saying the Iraq situation is as simple as the oil war many protesters are portraying it as - but whatever it is, it’s not about the welfare and happiness of the Iraqis.

Given that, then (although I’m sure many of you wouldn’t grant me that so easily), this war is at best the right action for the wrong reasons, and there are many ethical theorists who would argue that intention is such an essential part of ethics that there cannot even be a right action for the wrong reasons: without the right intention, you cannot have a right action. (There are notable exceptions to this, of course; utilitarians would disagree.) I’m not a through-and-through Kantian, but I’ve always found something appealing about the practical formulation of the categorical imperative, which states that an action is right or good if it treats the people involved as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end. I think this is where my intuition about the wrongness of the war has its origin: the Iraqis are not, whatever claims our government might be making, being treated as ends in themselves, but rather means to American ends, whatever those might be. Money, oil, power, whatever - we aren’t fighting out of the noble altruism espoused by Bush’s speechwriters, and that’s what bothers me.

Of course, that isn’t all that bothers me. I have an intense dislike of our President - I find him an entirely uninspiring leader, and it’s depressing that we’re led by someone so lacking in charm or intelligence. But pointing out these things, as many anti-war protesters are wont to do, does not in itself constitute an argument against the war, and that’s why I’m not out in Times Square today. Slogans and signs without informed opinions to back them up are little better than the President’s Axis of Evil, and I find them nearly as distasteful. Nearly, because protesters don’t have the power to start an unjust war - but they might contribute to the downfall of the person who does.

I’m not saying I think all anti-war protests are wrong, or that I think all anti-war protesters are uninformed. On the contrary, I think it’s important for there to be a visible body of dissenting opinion - I just wish more of the dissenters would make sure they understand exactly what they’re arguing for or against, rather than participating in rebellion for its own sake. If you think the war is wrong, and you’re prepared to take to the streets and shout about it, don’t you think you’d better be able to explain why it’s wrong? And again, I understand that many people can explain exactly that, and I commend them; I’m just reacting against the assumption that any protest must be worth participating - an assumption made too frequently, I think, by my peers.