McNamara and Ethics

"World War II is thought of as a just war. It is believed that the Allies fought on the side of good, and that what they did in their wartime effort was justified by that fact." -The Fog of War Website (Synopsis section)

Although this section goes on to show that McNamara clearly has a moral point of view on things, or at least appears so, this is a tremendously bold statement. Applying, in short, everything we know thus far about moral responsibility and war, so many questions come up. How is the resort justified, especially if the conduct is unjust?(assuming that the conduct IS unjust) Who lays responsible for such tragedies, ones that affect millions of peoples of foreign countries, as well as the lives of Americans? Is there ever a circumstance in which war is justified?(Harm prevented vs. harm done?)

The Fog of War seems to, based off of the information on the website, drive these kinds of questions, with no definite solution. However, having someone so high in power at the time, or at least much higher than any one of us can imagine, will bring a new perspective into things. Will he feel responsible for what he has advised or commanded? Or say it was his duty? One thing to examine closely is proportionality, how one weighs the costs and benefits of the war and if they are justified in doing so in that manner.

I guess on a side note it will be interesting to see this film again. I saw it a few years ago in my European History Honors class in high school. Whereas the topic was the same, the setting was different. We were more concerned about who made decisions and how things came into being, rather than whether or not actions were morally right, or who exactly had blame. Also, from a liberal arts perspective, and maybe even now from the perspective of a college student versus a high school student, it will be interesting to see what I pick up from this, because I honestly cannot remember much about it.