Well, there's your trouble...

As I surmise, there seems to be two diametrically opposing viewpoints that show up in nearly every instance of conflict in our body politic, whether domestic or foreign. What we're seeing is Moral Absolutism versus Moral Ambivalence, and Moral Superiority versus Moral Equivalency. Moral Absolutism holds to the idea that there is actually Right and Wrong out here, and we need to hold to those standards of right and wrong. Moral Ambivalence pretty much allows the standard to be moved at will. Moral Superiority is the result of keeping to the high road, however imperfectly, whereas Moral Equivalency allows any wrong doing, no matter how egregious, to equal a mere misstep. The best example I can see of late is the recent beheadings in Iraq and the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. Somehow, beheading someone for mere association with the 'enemy' is no worse than underwear on a head that's still attached. I'll take underwear on somebody's head with the promise that 'we'll take care of it' over someone raking a blade through the flesh of an innocent civilian or an Iraqi citizen trying to get his country back, anytime. See how easy it is to see the difference?