The false choice between realism and morality

Scott Burchill  initiated this exchange about realism and ethics (see here, here and here for subsequent posts) with what he asserted is the key question to be answered by opponents of the Iraq War: 'Was your opposition ethical or strategic?' His assumption was that it had to be either one or the other. But why can it not be both?

I opposed the invasion of Iraq on a number of realist grounds. In no particular order, they included (a) that it would confirm and strengthen suspicion of and hostility towards America, which I continue to  believe is a force for good in the world; (b) that Colin Powell's warning, 'If you break it, you own it', was right; (c) that it did not make sense to fight the 'war on Islamic terrorism' by attacking one of the few secular regimes in the region; (d) that it would strengthen the position of Iraq's main rival Iran, a much more formidable opponent of American interests in the region.

But I also opposed the war on moral grounds, in that it involved a serious and dangerous extension of the claim to the right of resort to pre-emptive attack, a right usually exercised by the strong against the weak. More...