Ian Linden: Where do British soldiers with moral doubts about this war go now?

Once fighting begins church leaders usually eschew moral judgements to pastor the troops. But this time they have already said too much

So Bush and Blair have met to prepare for war. A military attack on Iraq by the United States and Britain is imminent. British and American politicians scuttle round to convince the world this is justified. There are two fronts to every armed conflict, one the propaganda war, the other where real people are turned into "collateral damage" by "smart" bombs. The propaganda front is on swampy ground.

No one believes that the born-again President wants to champion international law and the United Nations. That is not the Manichean world of George W. Bush. The UN just does not fit the big picture. True, in some fundamentalist novels, the Secretary-General features as the Anti-Christ. But the US President is more pragmatic. Good, located in the US and its allies, must fight against Evil, located wherever the missiles are targeted. "And in this great conflict, my fellow Americans, we will see freedom's victory. May God bless." This was the end of his first State of Union Address a year ago. On Tuesday we had part two of Liberty's progress through history.

Yet God has been slow to bless future smiting on his behalf. The churches in the US and Britain have been outspokenly opposed to precipitate military action. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, spoke of the unpredictable consequences of war, emphasising the fallibility of statesmen. He touched public opinion. Many people fear provoking further instability in the Middle East, drawing down a new plague of terrorism on Britain. Bishop Tom Burns, Roman Catholic Bishop to the British Armed Forces, was no less trenchant. If our troops died in an Iraq invasion, could he tell a grieving widow that her son had died in a good cause? No, he said in November 2002, he could not. To kill and to put their lives on the line, British troops needed to be satisfied that they were acting in a just cause.

The contrast with the churches' response to the first Gulf War in 1991 is striking. Cardinal Basil Hume and Archbishop Robert Runcie visited the Prime Minister, John Major, on the eve of the war. They were accused by Tony Benn of being called in to bless a bloodbath. In fact it was they who had requested the meeting. Seeking a ban on the use of napalm and other requests was hardly a prophetic denunciation. But the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Church and State agreed, was a flagrant and indisputable breach of international law and the UN Charter.

Unlike the Pope who repeatedly called for peace, that was it. Such a silence, though, is a standard response by local church leaders, the clerical way of "backing our boys". Once the troops are in combat priority is given to the Church's "pastoral responsibility". The Archbishop of Canterbury is formally Archbishop for the Armed Services. The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster is also understood as representing the whole Catholic Church in England and Wales. But that formula may not work this time. And the neat division into exclusive "prophetic" and "pastoral" modes needs to be looked at carefully.

Church leaders' prudential judgement on the coming war is based on an application of moral principles to their analysis of the situation. The latter differs in important respects from that of government. For example, as a means of limiting resort to war, the churches give great weight to the goals of the UN Charter, the need for UN authorisation of military interventions. This contrasts with the British government's current approach of talking about the rule of law in international relations as if it were a refined matter of etiquette. Like a preference for dressing for dinner that Texans might not understand.

It looks as if British troops will fight in a war that, for a variety of reasons, the churches will not be satisfied is just. Is "pastoral responsibility" under these circumstances discharged as an ambulance ministry, consoling the wounded and bereaved? Surely the duty to inform consciences remains. Not putting people in "bad conscience" has been a traditional reason for reticence. But will a troubled silence on the part of chaplains be much help to troops who have heeded church leaders and have conscientious doubts?

To be realistic, ours is the professional army of a secular country. Most of the armed forces, having taken the "Queen's shilling", will dutifully do the job for which they are trained. The likely consequence of selective objection is resignation followed by the Jobs Centre. But the option to switch to non-combatant roles should be clearly open.

A large number of reservists have also been conscripted. A few may selectively object though virtually all will be in non-combatant roles. They should not have to go to Iraq. A growing movement of selective objectors exists amongst Israeli reservists, including officers, who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories. In Britain a peace group called At Ease offers helpful information about legal rights for conscientious objectors. They should find no less support in the churches.

There is no axis of evil. We do not live in a Manichean world. We all share dual citizenship in the City of God and the City of Man, though in unequal measure. That matters when we are deciding whether to go out to kill and be killed – even to remove a tyrant.

At Ease can be contacted at 28 Commercial Street, London E1 6LS or on atease@advisory.freeserve.co.uk