How does one determine when any particular society is pertrating an evil war? For instance, though I don't contend the American (and British) war in Iraq is evil, per se, I could see some reasonable interpretation in finding it illegal and unprovoked (even if our intelligence was wrong about WMD, it was - after all - our intelligence). And since American citizens have the right to vote, our entire society might also be reasonably held responsible for the prosecution of such a war.
On the other hand, truly evil regimes usually don't allow their citizens the right to vote, or protest, or participate in any way in the decision-making of such regimes. How then could we find such a society's civilians to be responsible for any hypothetical "evil war" perpetated by their rulers?
I guess I'm just not clear on when civilians are fair game, in your mind. They rarely are in mine. Even if it were determined that civilian infrastructure had to be taken out for legitimate war goals (i.e, a bridge taken out to disrupt economic activity as opposed to disrupting military transport), would you rather bomb the bridge, or the TV station, or the airport in the middle of night, to minimize casualties? Or is killing as many civilians as possible a legitimate war tactic?
If so, is it legitimate as a tactic of extortion (such as a nuclear strike on a metropolitan area) or is the killing of civilians for the express purpose of wiping out a population ever allowable?
.