America’s Controversial Wars, Essay Example

The traditional controversy surrounding America’s entry into various conflicts is not only limited to fairly recent incidents such as the war in Iraq and the war in Viet Nam. For example, participation in the Second World War was also largely opposed by the American populace, who preferred a certain isolationist policy – this, of course, changed with Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, after which the entry into war was viewed as a necessary response to the attack on the United States. Such questions about the justness of a given war are not only a matter of public and political opinion. These issues contain a clear ethical dimension, as evidenced by the theory of ius bellum or just war theory. This is an ethical discourse which inquires into the possibility of what a just war means. When addressing, therefore, the controversial wars in which America has partaken, and moreover, examining the righteousness or lack thereof of American participation, this is essentially a question of ius bellum and just war – where in the history of America can we isolate instances of such just wars? Certainly, from an ethical perspective that upholds the idea of the universality of human rights and the sovereignty of nations, the conditions for a just war would have to be based on a clear existential threat to the United States. In this regard, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Second World War could be viewed as meeting in this criterion. When considering controversial and unjustifiable wars, there are many in America’s history – for example, the genocide of the American Indian, needed to establish the United States as such. In this regard, some of the most controversial wars in U.S. history are precisely those in which conditions for just war were manipulated by the government, such as in the Vietnam war, whereas the least controversial wars are those that satisfy these ethical conditions, such as the Second World War.

With these theoretical considerations in mind, it is interesting to look at a conflict such as the Vietnam War and consider the logic that was promoted by the politicians for the violence. Certainly, at the outset, the U.S. administration presented the justification for war in a context that would seem to satisfy the conditions for a just war theory. The administration claimed that the seizure of power by communists in Vietnam would lead to a so-called “domino effect”, whereby if Vietnam would become communist, other nations within Southeastern Asia would also follow suit. The presence of communism in Asia to the U.S. was clear, insofar as China, North Korea and the Asian parts of Russia were all based on communist ideology. The reason for the war presented to the public was therefore to prevent communism from becoming the dominant ideology within Asia. Much of the world and a good portion of the American public opposed the conflict, interpreting these motives as a mask for American imperial ambitions in Asia. The humanitarian atrocities that were a result of the war on both sides of the conflict demonstrated a greater ethical concern on the part those hostile to the war.

Despite such opposition, the conflict nevertheless continued, leading to the eventual defeat of American forces. However, after this defeat there was no such great domino effect in Southeast Asia, thus demonstrating the flimsiness of the initial explanation of war. The human cost of the conflict was the deaths of millions of Vietnamese citizens and soldiers and the loss of approximately fifty thousand American servicemen. Moreover, the increasing capitalization of Red China and also Vietnam has led to open trade relations with U.S., despite supposed ideological differences. The just war theory in this case was deliberately manipulated by the politicians in order to present to the public an image of the righteousness of this war. Accordingly, this is arguably one of the more controversial wars in history, since it employed such a clear manipulation of just war theory.

When considering the ethics of just war theory it is clearly the Second World War which provides a lucid example of such a just war, to which few would object. The conflict had begun in Europe and in Asia, started by the Axis Powers. The U.S. remained hesitant about entering the conflict, and a good number of American citizens opposed entry. This, however, changed with the incident at Pearl Harbor – Japan’s explicit attack against a nation with which it was not at war could only be viewed as a call to arms. Moreover, the aggressiveness and violent nature of the Nazi Regime in Europe made it clear that intervention in the European theater would basically represent a stand for universal human rights against the discrimination and extermination of various ethnic groups. Accordingly, the American involvement in the Second World War represents an ethical intervention not only to protect the U.S. from an existential threat, but also shows a commitment to a universal notion of human rights, in which the suffering of individuals must be opposed at all costs.

The question of a just war is thus one of some ethical complexity, insofar as war is by definition violent. Accordingly, the conditions for a just war must be thoroughly studied and reflected upon. This is the proper course of action if one wishes to maintain a fundamentally ethical perspective on the issue of war. Conflicts in Vietnam can be said to have thoroughly lacked this ethical perspective, whereas the Second World War was a clear example of the fidelity to an ethical cause, based on both maintaining the existence of the U.S. and a dedication to the universality of human rights.