Exactly how many "just wars" would you consider the US to have fought?

[ButterflyBlood]

When I thought about this, I realized there's only 2 I can absolutely say this for: WWII and the Civil War. Shows how much less wars we need.

[madrchsod]

1. ww1-maybe

ww2 and korea were just wars

[Yupster]

6. I'll agree with your two, madrchsod

WWII and the Korean War for sure.

I'd say no on WWI and all the rest.

At the time of the Revolution, we had not exhausted nearly all avenues without war. That situation very well could have evolved into a situation where the colonies were given representation in Parliament and an eventual Canada-like separation.

To me the Civil War is among the most unjust of all.

[Radical Activist]

35. ww1 was pointless.

It was fought over nothing and accomplished no good end. Even in the decade after it happened many people felt it had no purpose but to make war profiteers rich at the expense of the poor. That's something no high school textbook will tell you though.

[DivinBreuvage]

50. Mostly true, but don't forget it wrecked a few monarchies.

including the Russian Czars. with Che as your avatar, you should have remembered that :)

[Dookus]

2. I dunno

the American Revolution seemed like a pretty good one, too.

[Warpy]

3. The War of 1812

the Revolutionary War
World War II

The rest were bogus, especially the Civil War.

Lincoln should have let Dixie just GO.

Slavery would have been abolished once mechanization had rendered it relatively unprofitable, probably within a decade or two.

The south's educated class would have survived, and possibly have guided them towards a more equitable system than the English system of landed gentry and feudal serfs.

It's nice to think of an America that might have been, whether you're in the north or the south. The Civil War did a disservice to both.

[1monster]

8. But if that had happened, the USA and The CSA would probably have

met on the battlefield at some not to far in the future date anyway as they both vied for the westward lands....

[wuushew]

15. The War of 1812 was unjust

It was we who declared war on Britain(encouraged by South-western war hawks and greedy New England business men) and then made several and ultimately unsuccessful attacks into Canada. Was the burning of York worth it when the British marched into Washington and torched it?

The War of 1812 did nothing to stop the impressment of American sailors by the British during the Napoleonic wars. The end that conflict eliminated the so called cause of the conflict more effectively than any Anglo-American battle did. Indeed the conflict caused us far more damage both to property and lives than the original problem warranted.

[Minstrel Boy]

29. thanks!

Here's a Canadian take on the War of 1812:

Secord's Warning

Come all you brave young soldier lads
With your strong and manly bearing
I'll tell you a tale of a woman bold and her deed of honest daring
Laura Secord was American-born in the state of Massachussetts
But she made her home in Canada and proved so faithful to us

Chorus
There's American guns and 500 men
So the warning must be given
And Laura Ingersoll Secord was the stalwart heart
Who braved the heat and the flies and the swamp
To warn Colonel Fitzgibbon

There's soldiers pounding at the door
And they come from across the border
American officers march inside
It's food and drink they've ordered
In comfort they have dined and drunk
Their own success they've toasted
But they pay no heed to the woman who hears their plan so idly boasted

"Oh, James I've overheard it all
A surprise attack they're making
Fitzgibbon they intend to smash
His men for prisoners taking
And James a warning never you'll take with your wounded knee and shoulder
I myself must carry it past the sentries and the soldiers"

It's an all-day tramp to the British camp
By way of Shipman's Corners
There're snakes and flies and sweat in her eyes
There is no respite for her
She's lost her shoes in the muck of the bog
Her feet are torn and blistered
But there's many a soldier lad to be spared if the message be delivered

So all you Yankee soldier lads who dare to cross our border
Thinking to save us from ourselves
Usurping British order
There's women and men Canadians all
Of every rank and station
To stand on guard and keep us free
From Yankee domination!

The story:

Canadian militiaman James Secord was badly wounded in the Queenston battle 13 October 1812. The following May, Queenston was again invaded by Americans and this time they took the area. All Canadian men over 18 were marched off as prisoners of war, but James was allowed to remain in his home due to his wounds. Three American officers lodged with James and his wife, Laura Ingersoll Secord. Some months later, Laura overheard the Americans planning a surprise attack on the Canadian forces under FitzGibbons at Beaverdams.

Laura decided she had to get word to FitzGibbons of the planned attack, and set out at four in the morning to walk the 32 kilometres to the Decew house where FitzGibbons was staying. She told the American sentry she was going to St. David's to visit her sick brother, and after briefly stopping there, she continued on the Old Swamp Road into Black Swamp. She could not go by the main road and was forced to go through the swamp in the mid day heat, watching for rattlesnakes and wolves. By noon she had left the swamp and was ready to cross Ten Mile Creek before climing "The Mountain" , the name given to the Niagara Escarpment. When Laura finally reached the top of the mountain after an 18 hour ordeal, she was exhausted and lost. Stumbling through the woods into a clearing she was surrounded by Mohawks and Caughnawagas, loyal Six Nations allies. Laura pursuaded the warriors to take her to FitzGibbon. FitzGibbon was amazed at the 38 year old woman's tenacity and later wrote:

"Mrs. Secord arrived at my Station about sunset of an excessively warm day, after having walked about twelve miles which I at the time thought was an exertion which a person of her slender frame and delicate appearance was unequal to make."

With Laura's warning, the Canadian forces were prepared and when the Americans arrived, 50 soldiers and 200 warriors stood ready. All but 6 of the American soldiers were captured and their attempt to control the Niagara Peninsula ended.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~canmil/1812/bios/laura.htm

[TheFarseer]

38. War of 1812 was unfortunate

Our main issue was impressment of sailors. Parliament had voted to put an end to that practice 2 days before we declared war.

[MsConduct]

4. IMHO there is no such thing as a 'just war'. But as far as needing

to get into a war, American Revolution (of course) and WWII are the only ones I can think of.

[devilgrrl]

5. None.

As for WWII... notice that we didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor. Something tells me that the American people wanted nothing to do with what was happening in Europe until that point.

Sound familiar?

On edit: I would say that the Revolutionary War was "necessary."

[Make7]

7. One - the American Revolution. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. None. There is no such thing as a "just" war.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[hippywife]

36. Amen!

Anyone thinking we went to any war with anything close to an altruistic reason should read "A People's History of the United States."

[Meeker Morgan]

10. OK let's count.

I'll try be as charitable to the USA as I can. I'll leave out the various Indian wars and anything going on right now.

Revolutionary war -- Yes Yes Yes!

War of 1812 -- Maybe.

Mexican War -- NO!

Civil War -- Maybe. The good guys won, but we were fighting each other and it started "total war" in modern times.

Spanish American War and subsequent colonial wars. NO!

WWI -- Maybe.

WWII -- Yes!

Korea -- Maybe.

Vietnam -- NO!

Various concurrent Latin American and Caribbean skirmishes -- NO!

So that makes two definite and four maybes by my standards.

[qazplm]

11. mexican american war

having studied it a bit, Mexico was the militarily stronger nation, at least on paper, it may not have been a just war, but it was not the take advantage of weak Mexico that many people portray it as today.

If Mexico had had halfway decent military leadership, by all accounts they should have sent the Americans home packing...they had better Spanish made weapons, they sent their officers to train in European academies, it was poor Generalship that lost them the war.

WWI wasnt a just war but our entry into it quickly ended it (relatively speaking so in a way that is just).

Korea was definitely just IMO.

Vietnam is way to complicated to try and ferret out but just war it wasnt on both sides.

I dont know that i would call the Revolutionary war a just war, i would call it an inevitable war, and one that had a good result, and in many ways an inspiring story (not just for us, it in large part inspired the French Revolution).

[Terran]

16. WWI--*not at all*

Our involvement in the first world war was the product of the first great propaganda campaign foisted on the American public. There were no good or bad guys in that war, just two sets of aligned powers. Nobody even "started" WWI; it all happened because of an international incident (the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) that led to automatic declarations of war because of all the treaties and agreements in place. Even back in 1915, a lot of Americans claimed that the only reasion the US gov't went to war was to protect loans made by American banks to Britain. It was total bullshit, AND it basicdally created the conditions that led to the second world war.

[TheFarseer]

40. There was really no reason to go to WWI

I read alot of people wanted us to intervene on behalf of the Germans, which makes sense given how many German immigrants were in the US. I suppose big money had links to Britain though. I wonder if the submarine thing was a real reason or kind of an excuse, like weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to go back to that time period and know the way people were thinking back then.

[BrainRants]

12. The Cola wars were unnecessary.

I mean c'mon, blind taste test? Mix it with some freakin RUM dammit, that'll bring our boys home safe!

I think the Civil War was just in that it brought an end to slavery, and WWII brougth an end to tyranny.

I think Afghanistan qualifies also, however Iraqnam does not.

[roguevalley]

13. They all suck but where would we be without the Revolution,

the Civil War and WWII?

[frustrated_lefty]

14. No war is just, blah, blah, blah..

It's trite, but true. That acknowledged, WWI was basically just. By extension, so was WWII. The end and conditions set at the end of WWI created the landscape which allowed WWII to be. The Civil war? Was it just? That's very hard to say.

Viet Nam? People seem to forget this, but the US became embroiled in Viet Nam back in the '50's with the OSS. Our involvement there grew like a cancer metasticizes. It wasn't a just war, imo, but it crept up on us in a unigue, unprecedented way. Again, I may be wrong, but the Gulf of Tonkin seems, to me, the birthplace of American dis-information as it relates to war. And, in my opinion, we betrayed our own soldiers there, we failed them, not the other way around.

FL

[wuushew]

17. kick

:kick:

[Walt Starr]

18. List 'em

1) American Revolution - Just war
2) War of 1812 - Just war
3) War with Mexico - Debatable
4) Civil War - Just War
5) Spanish American War - Debatable
6) World War I - Debatable
7) World War II - Just War
8) Korean War - Unjust war
9) Vietnam - Unjust War
10) Grenada - Debatable
11) Panama - Debatable
12) Gulf War I - Debatable
13) Somalia (begun by G.H.W. Bush) - Debatable
14) Bosnia - Debatable
15) Afghanistan - Just War
16) Iraq War - Unjust war

[Walt Starr]

20. .

[bobthedrummer]

19. 3- the Revolutionary, Civil and WWII.

[Walt Starr]

24. We were invaded in 1812

and defending ourselves against an empire bent on stopping the independence we had previously won was pretty damned just if you ask me!

[meow2u3]

43. The Brits invaded the US in 1812

This was a war fought to repel invaders; therefore, the war of 1812 was just.

[Minstrel Boy]

47. Where the heck do you learn your history?

Clearly not in Canada! :hi:

[autorank]

21. Five

Revolutionary War (Read the Declaration_
Civil War (The sins of our founding fathers.)
WWI (Fuck you Kaiser)
WWII (Oh yeah, clear cut)
Korea (Sorry China/Korean/Russian nutjobs, this can't happen)
Kosovo (As in genocide)

I'm open to additions but that's it. Oh yeah, I think it was OK for Black Jack Pershing to chase old Poncho Villa around a bit. No harm, no foul, and they got to visit some beautiful parts of Mexico. Great 'police action', nothing happened.

[Walt Starr]

23. You left out the War of 1812

but I disagree with you about WWI, Korea, and Kosovo. I do not consider any of those "just wars".

[autorank]

26. Fire away, I'm interested and have an open mind.

[Walt Starr]

30. Kosovo was unjust because we cannot be the world's policemen alone

Genocide is occurring at an alarming rate globally. Picking and choosing where to intervene and where not to intervene is not a course for any single nation or subset of nations. It is up to a global body, i.e. the U.N.

The U.N. did not get on board for Kosovo, ergo, it was unjust.

World War I was a steaming pile and we only got involved to prop up Wilson's cronies.

Korea was another pile of crap. Remember, currently two thirds of those nations which were divided at the end of WWII have been reunited. The Korean conflict lead directly to the situation we have today.

[autorank]

32. Hmmm...

Kozovo, you're right on a technicality. We should have gone through the UN. At the same time, the "cause" was just since, by objective standards, this was genocide. Would we have been unjust if we'd hung in there in Rowanda? Conversely, was Rowandan genocide just because the UN pulled troops out (a world body)? Anyway, I agree that we needed to go through the UN.

Korea was/is a mess. However, the South Korea of today would not exist and all those folks would be worshiping the latest "cult of personality."

On WWI, I'm leaning in your direction. The onset was truly pathetic. The German attack on France was without any justification other than their, back then, normal paranoia and sour grapes (love em now). The outcome lead directly to WWII. So I'll agree on that one.

But Walt, you didn't comment on my ideal 'police action,' Pershing-Villa. You have to love that one. Great model. You come on our territory, we chase you onto yours, and everybody goes to the saloon at the end of the day.

[Lone Pawn]

59. It gave us a counterbalance against North Korea

and kept half the people in Korea under free, self-deterministic government. Do you think the DPRK would be any easier to deal with today had they the resources of all of Korea?

[OrlandoGator]

22. American Revolution and WW2.

The Civil War wasn't about freeing the slaves, historians have just framed it that way.

[Walt Starr]

25. Everybody leaves out the War of 1812!

We were INVADED by a HOSTILE ENEMY!

[liberalpragmatist]

33. US declared war on Britain

The stated reason was the British practice of "impressment" whereby Britain, in a policy meant to strengthen them against Napoleon, claimed the right to declare any British sailor a member of their navy. British sailors used to masquerade as Americans, and so the British often ended up pressing American sailors into service.

This practice was used by the war hawks in Congress as an excuse to launch a war on England that was largely unnecessary. The real reason was b/c war hawks in Congress wanted to take over Canada and also wanted to use it as an excuse to take Florida from the Spanish while the British were distracted.

The reason the war was unecessary was b/c by the time war was declared, Britain had stopped "impressment." The actual rationale for war was completely gone.

Britain invaded thereafter but it wasn't a primary concern of theirs - they were focused on a life-or-death struggle with Napoleon. With Napoleon defeated they turned their attention to the US and their army torched Washington, but it's doubtful they were trying to take us over.

That's why the War of 1812 was a stupid, unnecessary war.

Oh, and I disagree heavily on Kosovo. We'll just agree to disagree, but I'll state my point which is that other nations have a responsibility to act in the face of genocide whether or not the UN approves. The UN is highly dysfunctional and should be used whenever possible, but if genocide is ongoing it is morally reprehensible in my view for other nations not to get involved if the UN doesn't approve. Given the politics of the UN, often times essential actions are not approved.

This doesn't justify the Iraq War b/c the case for war was never made and ironically it was also a case where UN approval actually could have been had if the Bush administration had been more competent and diplomatic.

[Radical Activist]

34. Because then we got stuck with Maine

and that was just wrong.

[Minstrel Boy]

48. FWIW, here's The Canadian Encyclopedia on the War of 1812:

The War of 1812, which lasted from June 1812 to December 1814, was an important milestone in Canadian history, a fight for survival against American invasion. Officially, the war was between the U.S. and Great Britain, but it focused on Britain's North American colonies rather than on Britain itself. Most of the fighting took place in the border regions between the U.S. and Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec).

Causes of the War

A major cause of the war was American anger that U.S. ships were being stopped and searched by the Royal Navy. Britain was in the midst of the NAPOLEONIC WARS against France, and it had declared a naval blockade to prevent any shipping from taking supplies to France. To enforce the blockade, the British stopped and searched ships from neutral countries. Many of these ships were American. The British also claimed the right to seize any deserters from the Royal Navy that they found on the ships. In 1807 they took four seamen from the American frigate Chesapeake, assuming that they were British deserters. But two of the men were American. This caused such an outcry in the United States that the two were later returned to the U.S. with an apology. But the British refused to give up their practice of boarding and searching neutral ships on the high seas and forcing deserters back into the Royal Navy.

This interference with American shipping alone would likely not have led to war, but the U.S. Congress was dominated by a group of men known as "War Hawks." The War Hawks were mostly from the western and southern states. They wanted to expand into the Indian Territory of the Ohio Valley. The native people of the Ohio Valley traded with British merchants from Montreal, buying the guns with which they fought to protect their territory. The War Hawks intended to stop this trade by driving the British out of Canada. Like many other Americans, they believed that it was the "manifest destiny" of the United States to take over all of British North America. Here was their chance to do so.

The declaration of war was made on June 18, 1812. Less than a month later, an American army crossed the Detroit River and invaded Upper Canada.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=J1ARTJ0008442

[DivinBreuvage]

49. No, but the war was all about slavery

Southerners at the time, both white and black, knew, understood, and accepted that. It is only modern white Southerners who use the code phrases of States' Rights, freedom from federal interference, etc. without understanding (or admitting) what their Antebellum forebears boiled those things down to: the power to control black people economically (if you were a rich slaveholder) and socially (if you were poor white trash and couldn't take out your rage and frustration on the rich slaveholders), but most of all, the power to prevent them from rising up and murdering all the white folks like they did in Saint-Domingue in 1791.

What issue had increasingly polarized the two sections of the country since the end of the Mexican War? Slavery. What issue got Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner almost beaten to death by a South Carolinian on the floor of the Senate? Slavery. What issue turned the Kansas Territory into a bleeding prophecy of the Civil War? Slavery. What issue caused John Brown to raid Harper's Ferry and transform the South into an armed camp? Slavery. And what issue was the Republican Party so closely identified with that the election of Abraham Lincoln convinced the South that the wolf was finally at the door and it was time to get the hell out? The abolition of Slavery.

You can dress it up in all the moonlight and magnolias you want, but the fact of the matter remains that, whatever other tangential grievances they might have had, white Southerners left the country in 1860 for the one great primary reason that they could not tolerate any further interference with the institution of slavery.

[Silverhair]

53. Great Post!!!!!!

I really get tired of hearing that the civil war wasn't about slavery, when in fact that was the core issue that had inflamed and divided American politics for decades before 1860.

It was so divisive that a new state could only be admitted if it was matched by another new state on the opposite side of the slavery issue. The senate was split exactly in half and that kept the balance.

Slavery WAS the core issue.

[DivinBreuvage]

57. Thank you, Silverhair!

When one puts a little effort into a post it's always nice to know someone is reading it (and it's even nicer when they like it :) )

That's a good supporting point about the 50/50 ratio too. I can understand why some people today might not want to accept that slavery was the root cause of the war, but it seems to me that the historical evidence, including the statements of the participants themselves, comes down pretty hard against them.

[morgan2]

27. why does everyone think the civil war was just?

Tge civil war was fought over "preseving the union," ie economic reasons. Slavery was an end result, not the cause. Why is it just to say a state can not succede from United States? Seems like a very valid action to me if the states' interests are not the same as the union's.

[Walt Starr]

31. Had the Civil War not been fought

Neither the United States nor the Cnfederate States would have survived.

[morgan2]

37. thats quite a leap

care to offer some explanation?

[K-W]

42. It was fairly obviously self defense.

You seem to be forgetting that the Confederacy fired first.

[morgan2]

44. they attacked a military vase on their soil that Lincoln refused to leave

[Lone Pawn]

60. It was still US soil.

The entire CSA was on US soil.

One does not get to disregard the constitution because one worries it will soon be restrictive on one's abhorrant practices.

[Jesus Saves]

28. How could you leave off the Revolutionary War?

The US wouldn't even exist absent that one.

[K-W]

41. The US didnt exist when it happened, so it wasn't a US war. EOM

The insurgency was not a state action.

[Lizzie Borden]

39. World War II

I believe the Civil War could have been avoided (with difficulty) and given the peace terms of WWI, WWII was inevitable

[nolabels]

46. Officially the US might of got in late but some corporations from the US..

Had their sticky little fingers in Hitler's pie from the get go, much like the Iraq of the present. Well that would be my thinking anyway.

[Silverhair]

55. That wasn't the reason we got in late.

The American public just didn't want to send a lot of guys to die in another European squabble.

[IrateCitizen]

56. Right. There was tremendous bitterness over WWI...

... that made the majority of the US public resist getting involved. They saw it as just another squabble between European powers, not recognizing Nazism for the horror that it really was.

The book Franklin and Winston by Jon Meacham provides a good bit of insight into this from the perspective of FDR and Churchill's friendship.

[nolabels]

61. Yea but the question was about a "JUST WAR"

So by some account we were involved from the get go, just not officialy

[Silverhair]

62. True. But I was responding to post 46. NT

[nolabels]

63. Yea, I agree that was a "JUST WAR" officially

The real underling fact though was the mostly we would have had even a more hellish war if they didn't. In essence Nazi's and Japan was already knocking at our door, contrived incidents or not, sooner was better than later. The point is we and or the rest of the world learned little of how that corporate capitalism started the whole effing thing.

Are we going to learn this next time, if there is a next time?

[adwon]

45. This seems like a very open ended question

What criteria constitute just? I'm not trying to be difficult, but without some kind of baseline, the answers to the question are not necessarily related. Do you judge the justness on personal criteria or national? That may seem like a silly question, but the two standards can, and often do, diverge.

I'd say clear-cut wars of conquest are unjust by definition, whether the conquest is overt (think of the Blitzkrieg) or covert (think of Hanoi and the NLF). Beyond that, it seems that gradations of justifiability are involved. I say justifiability because even 'just' wars involve unjust methods (systematic destruction of cities/towns in North Korea). Do a few bad apples truly ruin the bunch? Or, does a measure of the very nature of the war in question need to be examined? Or am I thinking too hard? :P

[ArkDem]

51. You are right. We had no business fighting that silly

American Revolution.

[Spinoza]

52. Unless you think

Colonialism is defensible, the Revoloutionary War. The fact that self-interest was involved doesn't negate the essential morality of that conflict. (Now that I think about it, anyone would be insane to fight any war if NO self-interest was involved.)

[IrateCitizen]

54. There's no such thing as a "just war"...

War is the ultimate failure of humanity. I find it impossible to consider destruction, butchery and slaughter on a massive scale to ever be considered "just".

However, there have been, unfortunately, times in which war has become pretty much unavoidable. In US History, I would say that the Civil War and WWII come pretty damned close to qualifying. However, that unavoidability doesn't make them somehow "just" or any less of a failure of humanity.

[Lone Pawn]

58. My list:

1) American Revolution - Just. Would probably had been better if England had 100 years prior just declared America no longer a colony and now part of England proper, and entitled to all the same rights and representations under the Crown.

2) War of 1812 - Unjust. "On to Canada!' No non-territorial reason for the US to declare war. Britain didn't particularly want to invade--they had Napoleon to deal with. However, pretty much guaranteed there would be no future conflict.

3) War with Mexico - Unjust at inception, but results were very good. Simply put, America's done more with the former Mexican territory than Mexico has done with its own.

4) Civil War - Just War. Shouldn't need to be said. The 'right' to leave a government because you worry they want to remove your economic system of enslavement of other humans is not acceptable.

5) Spanish American War - Moderately just. It freed Cuba, but was a land grab when it was launched.

6) Philippine-American War - Unjust. Fighting to prevent self-determination is unacceptable.

7) World War I - Just. Ended American regional isolationism and incepted the American ideal that all people deserve democracy. Instituted the idea of internationalism as opposed to nationalism.

7) World War II - Just.

8) Korean War - Just, but terribly fought.

9) Vietnam - Unjust.

10) Reagan's Wars - Ridiculous.

11) Gulf War - Possibly just.

12) Somalia (begun by G.H.W. Bush) - Just but failed.

13) Bosnia - Just.

14) Afghanistan - Just.

15) Iraq - Unjust.