Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Quizlet vietnam war
Introduction
“No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War.” (Richard M. Nixon, 1985) Despite almost half a century of retrospect, numerous studies, and the declassification of military documents, former President Nixon’s assertion still holds truth. Of all the wars that the United States has fought in, the Vietnam War has compelled the most Americans to question what we were fighting for and why. Was the Vietnam War a just war?
The Just War Theory
The Just War Theory has been shaped over the centuries by historians and philosophers. However, the most systematic account of the Just War Theory was formulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologicae. According to the Just War Theory, the moral reality of war is divided into two parts. Wars are judged twice, first with reference to the reasons nations have for fighting and secondly, with reference to the means they adopt in the actual fighting. (Walzer, 21) The first judgment is referred to as jus ad bellum, or justice of war. The second judgment is referred to as jus in bello, or justice in war. Jus ad bellum provides guidelines for assessing whether a war is just or unjust while jus in bello outlines proper conduct in war. Jus ad bellum does not imply jus in bello. Likewise, jus in bello does not necessitate jus ad bellum. It is possible for a just war to be fought unjustly just as it is possible for an unjust war to be fought justly.
The principles of jus ad bellum are having a just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing the right intention, and having a reasonable chance of success. A war must meet all of these requirements to be regarded as a just war. The first and most important condition of jus ad bel...
... middle of paper ...
... Lewy. America in Vietnam.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Herring, C. George. America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979.
Herring, C. George. The Pentagon Papers: the Defense Department History of United
States Decision Making on Vietnam. Boston: John Wiley & Sons, 1971.
Morgenthau, J. Hans. America’s Stake in Vietnam.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Pike, Douglas. Viet Cong: The Organization and Techniques of the National Liberation
Front of South Vietnam. Cambridge: Harvard Press, 1966.
Podhoretz, Norman. Why We Were in Vietnam.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.
Sullivan, P. Michael. The Vietnam War: A Study in the Making of American Policy.
Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1985.
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars.
New York: Basic Books, 1977.
The Vietnam War: A Concise International History is a strong book that portrays a vivid picture of both sides of the war. By getting access to new information and using valid sources, Lawrence’s study deserves credibility. After reading this book, a new light and understanding of the Vietnam war exists.
2) The cause must be just. This is jus ad bellum because you decide if
Vietnam was a highly debated war among citizens of the United States. This war was like no other with regards to how it affected people on the home front. In past war’s, the population of the United States mainly supported the war and admired soldiers for their courage. During the Vietnam War, citizens of the U.S. had a contradictory view than in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period.
In his speech, Eugene McCarthy describes why fighting the Vietnam War was a poor decision to make. First, he mentions how John F. Kennedy gave hope and courage to America and its people in 1963; on the other hand, in 1967, America was in a period of frustration and distrust due to the escalation of the Vietnam War. McCarthy states that America is not the world police and should not be giving promises that they could not follow through with. Moreover, the United States was fighting a pointless war where there are no changes being seen. “I see little evidence that the administration has set any limits on the price which it will pay for a military victory which becomes less and less sure and more hollow and empty in promise” (McCarthy). Throughout the duration of the war, the United States made very little progress, even though they had p...
The U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War Was Justified. The Vietnam conflict has been known to be the most unpopular war in the history of the United States. The war of 1812, the Mexican war and the Korean conflict of the early 1950's were also opposed by large groups of the American people, but none of them generated the emotional anxiety and utter hatred that spawned Vietnam. The Vietnam war caused people to ask the question of sending our young people to die in places where they were particularly wanted and for people who did not seem especially grateful.
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
The Vietnam War was the longest and most expensive war in American History. The toll we paid wasn't just financial, it cost the people involved greatly, physically and mentally. This war caused great distress and sadness, as well as national confusion. Everyone had that one burning question being why? Why were we even there? The other question being why did America withdrawal from Vietnam. The purpose of this paper is to answer these two burning questions, and perhaps add some clarity to the confusion American was experiencing.
It is understandable that some Americans strongly opposed the United States getting involved in the Vietnam War. It had not been a long time since the end of World War II and simply put, most Americans were tired of fighting. Mark Atwood Lawrence is one of the people who opposed our involvement in the Vietnam War. In his essay, “Vietnam: A Mistake of Western Alliance”, Lawrence argues that the Vietnam War was unnecessary and that it went against our democratic policies, but that there were a lot of things that influenced our involvement.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
The just war theory can be broken down into three components: jus ad bellum, jus en bello, and jus post bellum. Translated from Latin, these mean “justice before war, justice in war, and justice after war.” In this way, the Catholic Church is able to reconcile Jesus’s lofty teachings about loving your neighbor and causing no harm with protecting the innocent (Massaro 104).
The Vietnam War was a war that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1st 1955 to the fall of Saigon on April 30th 1975. This war was fought between the North Vietnamese Viet Cong and the government of South Vietnam. The criticism of the war in Vietnam started out as a reaction to President Johnson’s policy of fighting for a limited purpose and a negotiated peace in Vietnam. Criticism is valuable because it helps to correct communal procedures. That is a great advantage of exposed societies. But criticism works only if those in control have a sufficient intellect in order to recognize when a policy has gone wrong. The Vietnam War and its leaders is a "monument to the failure of that necessary wisdom" (Lewis). The supporters were known as “hawks.” As the President escalated the war effort, and became a hawk himself, his chief critics who disagreed with the war became known as “doves,” which included college students, faculty, and several other people who felt that the war was corrupt, was promoting no advantage for the US, and was increasing the number of casualties. But the Doves’ access to this goal is restricted: the war drags on. Many disaffected doves adapt to this situation by rebellion. They reject societal goals and means
The United States began sending troops to Vietnam to support the French in the 1950’s. During the next 25 years, the ensuing wars would cost 5 million people’s lives and create a series of domestic tensions in the U.S, like the Vietnam War protest movement and the Military Draft. Even though the Vietnam War had been considered the only war that Americans ever lost, many Americans believed it was a noble cause. Like President Johnson had said in 1965, “We have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence. To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.”
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
justice of war and the justice in war in a great depth, and uses numerous historical
Augustine illustrated on the prevailing Roman doctrine of justum bellum and the Old Testament stories of wars fought on Israel’s behalf, as demanded by God. Augustine aimed that fighting on behalf of the Roman Empire was a Christian obligation since the empire was Christian. Augustine maintained that this was fighting on behalf of God against God’s enemies, just as Israel defended itself against God’s enemies in Old Testament times. Augustine’s thinking has backed greatly to the discussion of what makes warfare justifiable right up until the modern day.