mbs: right. It's a practical argument, nor a moral one. But if you take it as universally applicable, then you could call it pacifist too.
dd: Furthermore, even if it is a pacifist argument, then it's one which greatly reduces any force in the charge of "selective pacifism", as it is an argument which can quite clearly be made selectively, and indeed ought to be.
mbs: could be made selectively, and clearly the practical consideration is important. But is it really being made, or is it merely being invoked?
dd: For example, one could quite consistently argue that a war against a small, unpopular country with few external allies, like Vietnam, was permissible on these grounds, while a war against a more politically loaded enemy, like Al-Quaeda was not.
The argument is only pacifist in a ludicrously strong, universally qualified version which literally nobody would ever bother with. dd
mbs: I'm not sure we should describe Vietnam as with few external allies. They had most of the Evil Empire, sans China.
In general I take your points, up to a point.
My feeling about this whole topic is provoked most by what I see often as simplistic protestations against violence that I suspect or observe are not applied consistently by the speakers.
mbs