Ethical Issues In Vietnam War Essay

An ethical analysis of the Vietnam War entails looking at different aspects of the conflict using moral principles and values: The main justification for the war on the American side was to stop the spread of communism. The United States was concerned that communism would reach America if they didn’t take any action in trying to stop the North Vietnamese. Another reason for the Americans was to protect South Vietnam, which was seen to be under threat from communist aggression, and military involvement was the only answer. The main justification for the North Vietnamese was to unify the country and overthrow the corrupt South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese believed that they were fighting against invading nations and fighting for freedom. The

Some argue that this tactic was justified because it leveled the playing field for the North Vietnamese and gave them a fighting chance. This hit-and-run strategy to avoid detection made up for the equipment and men they lacked compared to the large numbers of U.S. soldiers. On the other hand, an argument can be made that because of this tactic, the Americans struggled with identifying the enemy, which put civilians at risk, making this unjustifiable. Examining the treatment of civilians, both sides didn’t uphold human rights. For example, in Caputo’s and Hayslip’s books, they both explained their experience with an unfair trial they went through personally. The Viet Cong would find a reason to suspect a villager and then take them to a trial where they would be found guilty, with no chance to fight back. The Americans would put their men on trial for the murder of an innocent villager and only take in the facts, not that this happened in war. They held a trial for Caputo like they would if he killed the two men in the middle of a city located in the United States. These people didn’t take into account the conditions of war and that Caputo was a soldier serving his

involvement is that I don’t believe we should have ever sent troops to Vietnam. Our main justification for sending our military power was the domino theory, which is a plausible explanation that could happen. The United States sent young men to die based on a guess of what might happen in the future. The struggles between North and South Vietnamese were not an issue for the United States and we were not under any threat from this conflict. The U.S. made an assumption that led us to join a war that we couldn’t win. I believe this war could have been prevented if we hadn’t focused on the French, who were trying to expand their authority and power. Was their motive justified? The North Vietnamese reason for fighting was valid because they were fighting to unite their country, who was divided by force. If the United States were split up, people would fight to unify our country. In the American Civil War, America was split into two sides - the North and the South - but were later unified preventing the US from becoming two countries. I believe that the conduct of war on both sides is unethical and immoral, violating human rights. After reading about a soldier’s and a Vietnamese woman’s perspective, I don’t think the actions of both sides could be rationalized or justified. The Americans burned and destroyed the villages, and their rules of engagement were that a running Vietnamese was a VC. Any normal person