Just And Unjust War Analysis

966 Words4 Pages
“The American war in Vietnam was, first of all, an unjustified intervention, and it was, secondly, carried on in so brutal a manner that even had it initially been defensible, it would have to be condemned, not in this or that aspect but generally” wrote Michael Walzer in his book Just and Unjust Wars. Throughout history there have been a fair amount of wars fought, that are not considered justifiable, and the Vietnam War is just one of them. Under the Just War Theory, a war is justified when the country declaring war meet the jus ad bellum criteria. These principles include having a just cause, having the right intention, having legitimate authority, being proportional regarding the means used and it must be regarded as a last resort. During the war, the engaged countries must follow the two main principles of jus in bello; discrimination and proportionality. It is argued that the Iraq War (2003 – 2011) is one of…show more content…
“We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons” said Bush in his speech in 2002. Further reasons for the US’ invasion were Saddam posing a threat to the Middle East, Saddam’s unfair and harsh treatment of the Iraqi people, Iraq’s connection to al-Qaeda, and Iraq’s lack of democracy. However, in January 2003 the UN weapon inspectors, nor the US, had been unable to discover any WMD. Furthermore, there had been no evidence provided against the claim that Iraq had links to al-Qaeda. Moreover, al-Qaeda was at the time assumedly operating in approximately sixty countries. A British Broadcasting Corporation had conducted several interviews with Iraqi civilians, and not one of them had expressed wanting a democratic government. What the civilians really desired was a government which would provide security and without
Open Document