Sunday, January 22, 2006

24 and Munich

I was thinking about something similar to this too, but I think Luke DeSmet hits it precisely on the head here.

The results of the Iraq war may be a good argument for administrative ineptness, but it seems odd to me that the perceived morality of the war relied so heavily on (largely) chance consequences independent of the administration’s actions or motivations.

My claim is not that we shouldn’t care about the consequences—or do our best to better them—of course we should. But any effective moral opposition to the war should hold steady even in the hypothetical scenario that the campaign was a success.

Imagine an alternate universe, filled with Jack Bauers, in which the war was not only successful but resulted in a safer, happier world. Bush’s actions and motivations would remain the same. Would the idea of a rogue superpower, exacting its will upon smaller nations through military might, be any more palatable?

What about one in which Bush had chosen the moral path and not gone to war in Iraq, resulting in a nuclear device detonating in Times Square?


There's a LOT more where that came from.

1 comment:

Luke said...

You're far too kind, my good man.

Really, I just wanted a reason to continue loving the show.