Was American Intervention Justified?
By Gabrielle B.
The Vietnam War was one of the most controversial issues in the history of U.S. foreign policy since World War II. The fact that the U.S. lost the war at such a high cost makes it difficult to determine whether or not intervention was worth it. There is no simple answer to the question of whether or not U.S. intervention was truly justified, but perhaps the following brief points will clarify the issue.
Yes, intervention was consistent with the policy of containment.
The American government had been convinced that the Vietnam War was important to national security and would be morally justified due to the benefits the South Vietnamese would receive. The national security argument was based on the domino theory, but this argument fails on several points.
The Just War Theory states that for war to be considered moral, several criteria must be satisfied, including the following: jus ad bellum, or the right to go to war; proportionality; and jus in bello, or just laws within war.
Jus ad bellum declares that war must be waged for self-defense or in defense of another with sufficient provocation. The real purpose of the United States’ intervention was not in accord with this concept, a truth evident in the behavior of the U.S.
Proportionality requires that the anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to the expected evils. There must also be a probability of success; disproportionate measures cannot be used to be successful.
Jus in bello demands that war never be directed towards noncombatants or innocent civilians. The Vietnam War was a massive violation of this principle.
It can therefore be concluded that American conduct during the Vietnam War continuously violated the Just War policy. The war was unjust in its ends, unjust in the way it was fought, and a moral disaster.
Yes, intervention was consistent with the policy of containment.
- The Munich Analogy suggested that a greedy dictator cannot be satisfied and will eventually threaten American interests. Therefore, policy-makers believed that it was better and cheaper to defeat such a ruler early before he becomes an acute threat. The United States believed that the expansion of Communism had to be stopped at all costs; recent victories over Communist footholds in Greece, Turkey, and Iran were examples that intervention was beneficial.
- The U.S. government was convinced that China was helping North Vietnam attack the South as part of a Chinese master plan to take over Asia; Vietnam was considered a good place to draw the line.
- The Soviet Union supported a concept of “wars of national liberation” in which the Soviets planned to side with nationalist groups during revolutions to empower local communists to take over more easily. The Kennedy administration was convinced that the Soviets were testing this new policy in Vietnam, and believed they had to be stopped.
- It was considered important to intervene in Vietnam to both prevent a communist takeover and demonstrate the effectiveness of Western-style economic and social structures.
- Americans were extremely hesitant to “lose” another Asian country after China’s fall to communism; they feared it would be seen as American inaction. The pressure to intervene was so great that politicians didn’t think they could resist it without risk.
The American government had been convinced that the Vietnam War was important to national security and would be morally justified due to the benefits the South Vietnamese would receive. The national security argument was based on the domino theory, but this argument fails on several points.
- The domino theory was meant to predict the repercussions of letting international aggression to progress, so the situation in Vietnam was irrelevant.
- The movement in South Vietnam was, for all intents and purposes, of indigenous origins and did not start because of North Vietnam intervention (note, however, that in the 1960s the North began playing a larger role, mostly in reaction to American involvement).
- Northern involvement in South Vietnam was not a major issue since there was never a persuasive reason to consider South Vietnam a separate entity from North Vietnam.
The Just War Theory states that for war to be considered moral, several criteria must be satisfied, including the following: jus ad bellum, or the right to go to war; proportionality; and jus in bello, or just laws within war.
Jus ad bellum declares that war must be waged for self-defense or in defense of another with sufficient provocation. The real purpose of the United States’ intervention was not in accord with this concept, a truth evident in the behavior of the U.S.
- The United States was the only country guilty of international aggression. American intervention did not intend to, nor actually, uphold freedom and democracy. The communists became violent only after the Ngo Dinh Diem’s government left the political guidelines of the Geneva Accords with the help of the U.S.
Proportionality requires that the anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to the expected evils. There must also be a probability of success; disproportionate measures cannot be used to be successful.
- Even as evidence continued to accumulate that the stakes had been exaggerated, the U.S. became more and more involved in Vietnam. The probability of success decreased and costs of all aspects, especially human, increased.
- The fact that the U.S. was not willing to increase its military commitment enough to be victorious suggests that policymakers doubted that the stakes were global. Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were too economically and strategically insignificant to have their takeover considered a global threat; nothing should have been done.
Jus in bello demands that war never be directed towards noncombatants or innocent civilians. The Vietnam War was a massive violation of this principle.
- The strategy of the U.S. military can be summarized by General William C. Wesmoreland’s statement: “We’ll just go on bleeding them until Hanoi wakes up to the fact that they have bled their country to the point of national disaster for generations.” Essentially, more than one million North and South Vietnamese civilians were killed over the course of the war.
- The American government deliberately intended to destroy villages and farmland in South Vietnam to deprive the communists of a population base and drive people away.
It can therefore be concluded that American conduct during the Vietnam War continuously violated the Just War policy. The war was unjust in its ends, unjust in the way it was fought, and a moral disaster.