Contrary to Manjit Bhatia who tried lamely to rebut Strategic Analysis Malaysia chief analyst James Wong Wing o­n's piece o­n the moral responsibility of the war protesters, I thought Wong's raised an intelligent question.

Implicit in Wong's question is the recognition that the moral calculus is both sides of the issue: to go to war, there is a moral deficit; not to go to war, there is also a moral deficit. Those who protest focus entirely o­n the first option and ignore the second. Wong wants us to think o­n the second option. That is not "ridiculous" or "absurd".

Manjit's distinction that he and like-minded others are against the war itself but are not for Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime is, at its best, a distinction without a difference; and at its worst, an unredeemable absurdity. Because he changes the meaning and context of the war. He is against the "war" as an abstract concept. No, this is a "war against an expansionist ruler who has a record of attacking others".

Manjit's logical confusion is compounded by an irony. The illogicality he exploits, he denies his opponents. He draws the conclusion that all those who support the war support George W Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard.

Is it not possible that the some support the war because they are fearful of the long-term moral consequences of not going to war and not that they like Bush and his friends? Bush-Blair are merely the means to the goal of removing the long-term moral consequences of not going to war.

War is rarely a choice between good and evil, contrary to Bush's moralising and sermonising which many people find to be arrogant and so forth, but it is often a choice between a smaller evil and a bigger evil.