Which Wars Were Justified?

[Leoreth]

I would say yes (it's not as if the US weren't actively supporting the anti-German belligerents anyway). If it would've been wise strategically is another question of course.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I view the Revolutionary War from as objective a viewpoint as I can. I see no real difference between the aristocrats of Virginia and the aristocrats of England. Their rule over anyone but themselves is illegitimate. It did allow some excellent Enlightenment principles to government to take fruition, though. I like the "all men are created equal" bit, although the US has yet to fulfill that promise.

War of 1812...ideally I'd say the US was justified in defending its people against conscription into the Royal Navy, but NOT in invading Canada.

US Civil War...southern aristocrats seceded so they could maintain slavery.The war was a battle between commercial urbanization and traditional aristocratic farming, and if I had been there I would have burned a few plantation houses myself. Down with the slavers, and up with the star.

World War 2....the US was already an imperial power at this point and cannot scream "Evil!" at the Japanese. OTOH, the Japanese and Hitlerite empires were evil -- and I do not often use that word -- and needed to be destroyed for the sake of humanity.

Original Iraq war....I'm sure the US et al. entered it to protect Kuwaiti oil and not just because Saddam was a bad boy, but I approve of stopping men like Saddam.

The rest are wholly unjustified (Spanish-American War) or I don't feel my education is broad enough to justify commenting on (Korea).

 

[Winner]

Revolutionary War
-> 1.5 (yes, I am using decimals, blame the metric system ) - A war started by hypocrites against other hypocrites, in which still other hypocrites intervened to achieve previously unseen levels of hypocrisy. Meh.

War of 1812
-> ? Minor skirmish, only the Americans/Canadians care

Mexican-American War
-> 2 - There was some justification, but not enough to justify a clear land grab by the US.

Civil War
-> From which point of view?

Spanish-American War
-> ? - I don't know enough about it to make a judgement.

World War I
-> 3 - Give me a break, the US joined in order to protect its "investments" (=loans provided to the Entente nations). If it was serious about liberty, democracy, and all that stuff, it would have joined much sooner.

World War II
-> 4 - The US was attacked/declared war on by Germany. But it should have joined sooner. Also, the US committed numerous war crimes (including the atomic bombings) and then basically threw a half of Europe to Stalin, which can euphemistically be classified as "mismanagement".

Korean War
-> 4.5 - Not full 5 because the US actions before the war probably invited the North Korean attack. So, slight pre-war mismanagement + the botched invasion of North Korea that nearly led to a defeat.

Vietnam War
-> 2 - It was right to support the south, but the way it was done was morally highly questionable. After I saw the Battlefield: Vietnam documentary, my respect for the Vietnamese rose by 100%.

Gulf War
-> 3 - Something tells me that if Kuwait had been a completely oil-free country, nobody would have noticed it was invaded. Also, the war was left unfinished, which led to terrible massacres against the Kurds and the Shia as well as to immense suffering of the Iraqi people due to the sanctions imposed on them.

Afghanistan War
-> 4 - Justified, but mismanaged.

Iraq War
-> 2 - The saying "better late than never" doesn't really apply here. And it was grossly mismanaged.

Libyan War
-> 4 - Getting rid of Gaddafi was a morally sound goal, but the execution left a lot to be desired.

(I am surprised you didn't include the Balkan wars (1995 - Bosnia, 1999 - Serbia/Kosovo)

 

[mitsho]

I don't see an option for none?

not even having read the whole opening post, even the right to secede is a slippery slope, especially when contrasted with the civil war. They only tried to secede, right? And if it makes the war "just" that you are trying to free the slaves, then the right to seced doesn't really exist. Because then, the right to secede would only hold true if you want to secede and uphold human rights. Thus the human rights defending makes a war just. So we can conquer other nations to improve the human rights situation there? Uh no...

There's no just war. It's as simply as that.

 

[Leoreth]

World War 2....the US was already an imperial power at this point and cannot scream "Evil!" at the Japanese. OTOH, the Japanese and Hitlerite empires were evil -- and I do not often use that word -- and needed to be destroyed for the sake of humanity.

Do you really think that this was the prime reason for fighting the war?

 

[innonimatu]

Spanish-American War - War of Imperialism. Not even sure if the Maine was sunk by Spaniards, pretty sure their powder room blew up because of improper care. I guess the only redeeming part of the war was the liberation of Cuba.

Funny thing here: if it wasn't for the Spanish-American war, the japanese would not have had the US as a stumbling block in the Philippines, and would probably not have attacked Pearl Harbor!

 

[MantaRevan]

Revolutionary War:
3/5 King George's rule wasn't as bad as the colonists acted as if it was, and getting the most powerful empire in the world to invade you seems pretty stupid. Still, the America turned out pretty well.

War of 1812:
?/5 I don't know enough to say, but invading Canada seems aggressive and uncalled for.

Civil War:
4/5 I think this war was morally justified, but execution wasn't great.

Spanish American War:
2/5 Way over-propagated. They never even sunk our ships.

Philippine War:
1/5 Really dumb invasion.

Mexican American War:
3/5 I don't think that it was our job to get involved in this, but I see why we did.

World War I:
2/5 The biggest family feud ever. We were already supporting the allies de facto. Germany would have been fools not to do anything.

World War II:
4/5 The nazis were menaces in need to taking out. The only reason this isn't a five is because of the Dresden Bombings.

Korean War:
?/5 I don't know enough to say.

Veitnam 'conflict'(war):
1/5 This war was amoral and ill-managed, with fake justification of the war to top it of.

Iraq:
2/5 Bush was being dumb to do this,, but at least bush was being sincerely dumb.

Libya:
?/5 I don't really know yet.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Do you really think that this was the prime reason for fighting the war?

That the US entered the war for morality? Of course not. It moved against Japan only when Japan began threatening its interests. If the US was committed to acting morally, it would have accepted Jewish emigrants from Germany, France, Poland, and so on. But even accepting the fact that the US acted like any state acts most of the time -- for cynical reasons of self-interest -- taking down those two empires was a morally justified action that dwarfs the self-interest for me.

 

[Core Imposter]

Simple: Which wars were "Justified" wars for America to enter into, and how greatly, on a scale of 1-5 (For purposes of the poll, vote yes for a 3, 4, or 5, no for a 1 or 2.)

I reject your premise OP that justification has anything whatsoever to do with the actions of a sovereign state. You cannot judge the actions of a nation state on the basis of morality or ethics as they are applied to individuals. The individual has a role and responsibility in relation to other individuals and to the state; to live in peace in the first case and to submit to standards of behavior in the second. You can apply these sorts of judgements to a limited extent to the individual.

The state in contrast has the responsibility to protect its citizens and maintain order, towards other nations and the responsibility to respect national sovereignity and to honor commitments. You may judge the nation-state's effectiveness or reliability but trying to judge it on this basis is senseless because all moral and ethical standards are subject to sectarian, ethnic, racial, and religious biases. No such global standard exists to bind nations. The international standards and laws that have adopted over the course of history are mere diplomacy.

5. The war was completely justified, and handled ethically in most or all ways.

4. The war was mismanaged, but was morally justified

3. The war was either morally questionable but I lean towards its support, or grossly mismanaged but ultimately a good idea.

2. The war was morally questionable AND grossly mismanaged, or it simply had a very weak moral basis to begin with.

1. The war was blatantly wrong.

?. You don't know enough about this war to say. For this vote, don't check the war in the poll.

Your scale is pretty irrelevent as shown above. A better scale would speak to key issues such as the violation of sovereignty or treaty. You are also misusing the term war. A revolution is not a war nor is an action against a terrorist movement a war.

As for my opinions:

Revolutionary War: 100% OK. Right to secede is a right. 5/5.

No there is no right to secede. This was a rebellion. Rebellion are not right or wrong they either fail or they do not.

War of 1812: Ditto, we were attacked for refusing to trade. 5/5.

I do not actually know much about this one.

Mexican/American War: We had some moral basis because Texas wanted to secede from Mexico and all but asked for our help. However, the fact that part of the reason Texas wanted to join us so we could have slaves taints it. Also, I don't think we should invade anytime a territory wants to secede from the mother country. In general, these wars should be fought by the Revolutionaries themselves. 3/5.

The US doctrine of Manifest Destiny was the foundation of this War. You could make an intellectual argument that it has both similarities and differneces with Hitler's Lebensraum. I contend that morality has no purchase on these concepts.

Civil War: The only "Coup de grace" to this was post 1863 when we were actually fighting to free slaves. But until that point. The war was simply wrong. 2/5 just because of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Well you are consistent, stating that the South has the right to secede. I disagree, no such right exists, but as a Southerner I would and will always support Southern independence not on moral grounds but based on the fact that The War of Northern Aggression injured my section and my ancestors by force. I would like to see retribution for the offense.

Spanish American War: As far as I know, the only basis for this was them supposedly sinking our ship. 1/5 totally unjustified.

This one I am not too familar with either.

World War I: A European War. Not our place. And while Germany sinking our ships was extreme, they DID have some justification because we were de facto supporting England. It wasn't like we were just going our merry way and they attacked. 1/5.

I am not sure US participation was necessary.

World War II: Totally justified, Hitler was a rampage who needed to be dealt with. 5/5

Totally necessary.

Korean War: Justified because North Korea was one of the worst countries to live in, and it wasn't a good idea to let South Korea be forced into it. Bad because we grossly mismanaged it (We didn't get rid of NK) AND it was morally questionable (We were supporting a dictator.) 2/5, though it could have been raised to 3 or 4 with proper technique.

MacArthur was right. Communism and its half brothers socialism and progressive liberalism are the prime threats to liberty and should be resisted and attacked by all means including military force as a practical necessityindependently of those pesky and irrelevant moral considerations

Vietnam War: We drafted people to fight a war abroad, only to lose. This by fiat makes it 1/5. Not to mention it was morally wrong (South Vietnam had the WORSE dictator) and mismanaged.

You probably can figure out how I feel about this one based on my comments on Korea.

Gulf War: Mismanaged (If we were going to do it, THIS is when we should have kicked Saddam out) but not morally a bad idea (An innocent country was being attacked.) Plus, no draft was used. 3/5 I suppose.

Certainly appropriate and well done right up to the decision not to take out the regime.

Afghanistan: This was justified, as we needed to catch Osama, but it was probably mismanaged in some ways. 4/5.

Hubris. The idea that we can build a nation here that can somehow deny terrorists a base of operations is plainly ludicrous as we have seen as militants spread like wet gremlins. But the real tragedy here for the US is that this occupation threatens to change the nature of our military from a combat force on the eve of the third world war.

Iraq: NOT needed, and mismanaged. 2/5, NOT 1/5 because I do think Bush believed it was a good idea, and there were some benefits, it just wasn't the best thing.

The Iraqi war was clearly nonsense. Violation of national sovereignty for no good reason which damages our standing in the world. The attempt to nation build and institutionalize democracy is a fool's errand. Destablized the region. Bush's folly and the worst foreign policy blunder in US history.

Libya: Speaking against Bush's wars, then starting your own? 1/5.

This isn't a war. It constitutes stupidity in its highest form and nothing good will come of it. Even if the rebels there turn Libya into a pro-US secular liberal democracy, which isn't likely, the message this action sent to the rest of the world is simple. The US can't be trusted, is an out of control bully, and everyone needs to find alternative allies and develop nuclear weapons to protect against future aggression. Literally a moronic tampering with Pandora's Box. Might turn out to be a bigger blunder than the Iraqi invasion. BTW, you should couple US support for rebels across the Arab spring with this action. The entire nonsense is setting the stage for a future global conflict. George Washington is spinning in his grave and if you don't believe it please refer to the recent damage done to the Washington Monument.

Poll Coming.

I hope you will try to understand that I am just stating my point of view and recognize that I am not being personal in any way here.

 

[MobBoss]

Those saying no to the war of 1812 need to update themselves on the reasons that war occurred. A large part of it was because our ships were being boarded by the British and taking our men off them to impress them into British service for no other reason than just because they could. It was started for a justified reason, but the USA wasnt really ready for a war - and we drastically overestimated what we thought we could get out of it as a result.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

None. Absolutely none.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Funny thing here: if it wasn't for the Spanish-American war, the japanese would not have had the US as a stumbling block in the Philippines, and would probably not have attacked Pearl Harbor!

I wouldn't go as far to say that. Even if America did not have the Philippines, the Japanese might still have attacked the U.S. The Japanese realized if there were attain their goals of control over what they wanted the Pacific, they would eventually come into conflict with the U.S. And they saw Pearl Harbor as their best opportunity to buy them some time to build up their forces and fend off the Americans once they came.

I don't think the control over the Philippines was that major a catalyst for the move, but rather just one of the pieces.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

You didn't feel joining us in the Cod Wars was justified, so I can't see why any of those other wars could be considered such.

 

[choxorn]

Those saying no to the war of 1812 need to update themselves on the reasons that war occurred. A large part of it was because our ships were being boarded by the British and taking our men off them to impress them into British service for no other reason than just because they could. It was started for a justified reason, but the USA wasnt really ready for a war - and we drastically overestimated what we thought we could get out of it as a result.

Funny thing is, a few days before the war was declared, they got a new Prime Minister who decided to quit this sort of douchebaggery. Of course, America didn't hear about that until well after the war was declared, because stuff took time to travel across the Ocean in 1812.

 

[Hotpoint]

Those saying no to the war of 1812 need to update themselves on the reasons that war occurred. A large part of it was because our ships were being boarded by the British and taking our men off them to impress them into British service for no other reason than just because they could.

From the Royal Navy perspective they were taking British sailors off American ships (only those who were born as British subjects were subject to impressment). The sticking point was that the UK didn't recognise the principle of "Naturalised Citizen" that the US did, if you were born British you stayed British.

If you could prove you were a "real" American they let you go. Might also be worth noting that desertion from the RN was rife in the period and if you were a sailor who wanted to avoid getting conscripted and sent to fight the French (in harsh conditions for bad pay and under draconian discipline) you fled to America.

The Americans wanted an Article prohibiting impressment from their ships added to the Treaty of Ghent (which ended the war). The British said no and the Americans signed anyway, impressment ended soon after because the Napoleonic War did and the manpower wasn't required any more.

Funny thing is, a few days before the war was declared, they got a new Prime Minister who decided to quit this sort of douchebaggery. Of course, America didn't hear about that until well after the war was declared, because stuff took time to travel across the Ocean in 1812.

No, that was the ending of the Orders In Council 1807 which was agreed before the war, not the ending of impressment. Britain never accepted that they couldn't legally take British sailors off American ships.

 

[MobBoss]

From the Royal Navy perspective they were taking British sailors off American ships (only those who were born as British subjects were subject to impressment). The sticking point was that the UK didn't recognise the principle of "Naturalised Citizen" that the US did, if you were born British you stayed British.

Oh really. What part of the Revolutionary War did they not get?

And fwiw, this was 1812. How many of those men do you think had been born in the USA since the revolutionary war some 30+ years earlier?

In other words, lame excuse by the UK remains lame, and more than enough reason to declare war.

If you could prove you were a "real" American they let you go.

Yeah, i'm sure your average sailor carried his legible birth certificate with him on such a voyage.

Bottom line, the Brits doing that was a valid and just reason for the war. It would have helped if a young USA was actually ready for such a war.

 

[Hotpoint]

Oh really. What part of the Revolutionary War did they not get?

And fwiw, this was 1812. How many of those men do you think had been born in the USA since the revolutionary war some 30+ years earlier?

In other words, lame excuse by the UK remains lame, and more than enough reason to declare war.

It was actually men born in Britain since the American War of Independence who were subject to being impressed from American ships and many of them were actually deserters from the Royal Navy.

It's estimated that some 20,000 British-born sailors ended up serving on American ships during the period which means that despite impressment there was still a net loss of manpower from the UK to US. Conditions in the wartime RN were terrible and it's perhaps understandable that so many fled to a neutral country that spoke the same language.

Yeah, i'm sure your average sailor carried his legible birth certificate with him on such a voyage.

The US issued certificates to their sailors which were carried to exempt them from RN impressment but these stopped being accepted as proof when American sailors started selling them to British ones.

 

[MobBoss]

It was actually men born in Britain since the American War of Independence who were subject to being impressed from American ships and many of them were actually deserters from the Royal Navy.

Do you really think an entity as arrogant as the British Navy at the time recognized that limitation? Many american citizens that should not have been impressed were taken as part of this practice.

Also, you neglicted to mention, as part of this many ships and cargos were seized illegally as well. Adding to the tension that led to war.

 

[Linkman226]

The very concept of a "just war" is paradoxical. No war, ever, was just.

 

[MantaRevan]

The very concept of a "just war" is paradoxical. No war, ever, was just.

Right. But there is a difference between just, and necessary.