Which is (or should) be used to judge the morality of the actions of nations – the motives (actual or presumed) of that nation’s leaders, or the motives of the majority of its citizens?
For example, it is often stated that the US invaded Iraq either a) for the oil, b) to avenge Bush’s father, or c) whatever other motivation you want to attribute to Bush and his crew. But very few Americans are going to directly benefit from oil contracts, and even fewer give a damn about avenging Bush’s father. Most people I know who support the war either say they genuinely believe in trying to bring democracy to the Middle East, that they wanted to depose a brutal dictator, or because they thought it would help in fighting the war on terrorism. Whether or not these views are correct or misguided can be debated elsewhere. My question is whose motives should be considered when judging this war?
I don’t mean this as a partisan issue either; the same thing applies to the other end of the scale. I often hear people stating definitively that “France opposed the war because they were getting kickbacks from the oil-for-food program.” And while that may have effected the position of a few top-ranking officials, realistically the thousands of people protesting the war on the streets of Paris (and throughout the country) were motivated by a genuine feeling that this war was unjust. Should their motivations not be used as the benchmark when talking about France’s decision not to join the war?