Often, people think that when I argue with them about the war on terror, or the war in Iraq, or the war in Afghanistan, that I am somehow traitorous or ‘morally indistinguishable’ from a fifth-columnist or Al-Qaeda terrorists. Especially when I note that many of their political complaints are founded (though as I’m sure you can tell, I think the religious ones are just crazy).

Call it ‘nuance’ if you will, but for me, the distinction between ends and means is very important for me. I don’t think that we must take any action in the cause of justice or freedom or whatever it is we’re pretending to be fighting for today; we should take the right action. Some like to throw resources (money, troops, lawyers) at problems and others demand we retreat to our caves and abandon all collective enterprise so the wolves can feast on it. Neither of these approaches really work.

The problem is, if we recognize the validity of the other sides’ grievances, some will inevitably feel that this is a capitulation, that America must seem strong at all times, at all costs. (Incidentally, these are likely some of the same people who think that perception abroad of weakness invites terrorist attacks, when in fact, it has no bearing on the frequency of attacks whatsoever.) This position is fine, if you have no problem with civilian deaths, both here at home and abroad. If you wish to do anything about the death rate, it’s not really defensible to throw so many people upon the the fire of our supposed ‘national pride.’

I’m getting off on a tangent; my principal task here is to show you how I mean by ‘the means-ends’ problem. So, here are some sample breakdowns: