Just Cause
The just war tradition holds that aggression is unjustifiable and unjustly carried out in retaliation for aggression. Aggression is defined as the use or threat of force by one state against another’s political sovereignty or territorial integrity, such as America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The apparent justification for going to war is self-defense.
Right Authority
In history, proper experts intended sincere decision-making for the administration. The principle of appropriate authority has shifted to rest with the people’s collective. It will directly be impacted by the possible advancement and burdens of the conflict in a query as in America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.
Right Intention
A righteous war can only be waged to redress the injustice of aggression and bring peace. It is always immoral to seek retribution, dominance, injury, cruelty, or personal or national self-interest, as happened when Americans were embroiled in the Vietnam War.
Last Resort
To a justly waged war, all possibilities for redressing the injustice of aggression must first have been exhausted. The just war tradition assumes a moral aversion to conflict and asserts that, instead of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War, war should be avoided if at all possible.
Emergent Peace
According to the just war tradition, war should only be waged if it results in long-term peace. Such circumstances would have to address the issues that led to the aggression that ended the peace. This did not occur during America’s engagement in the Vietnam War, and in fact, it aggravated the issue.
Proportionality
Finally, war is justified only when the actual benefit to be gained outweighs the whole evil of fighting; however, evil trumped good in America’s engagement in the Vietnam War. The battle is disproportionate if the expected war’s entire cost of displacement, suffering, and death is too high.