Contemporary just war thinking has focused primarily on the roles of three agents in war: governments, soldiers and civilians considered as potential non-combatant victims of military attack: what are the responsibilities, permissions, rights and obligations of these? Relatively little has been said about the role that most of us are likely to play: the role of "ordinary citizens" (OCs). I trace this to the particular development and structure of the main elements of the just war tradition (jus ad bellum and jus in bello). In the paper, I discuss some implications of the revisionist theory of just war proposed by McMahan and others for the role of OCs. According to the revisionist view, ordinary soldiers are not permitted to fight if they are on the unjust side and should make an effort to determine whether they are. In analogy it seems that OCs are not permitted to support an unjust war. In a recent paper Saba Bazargan has argued that this is often not the case since there is an asymmetry between alternatives available to OCs and alternatives open to Government officials (in favour of the latter). In particular, OCs sometimes have to support wars with unjust "compound" causes if governments have linked them together with a just cause. I am critical of this view and argue that the asymmetry claim is implausible and offers a bad excuse for supporting unjust wars.