In what way could the Vietnam War be justified?

It was an aggressive assault upon a sovereign nation made in total ignorance with regards to said sovereign nation and the customs and modes of the peoples of said sovereign nation.

As Robert McNamara pointed out:

We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.

We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

It's been a while since I studied this but I'll say NOT justified and I'll make two points.

1) The trigger which got us into it was "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident", which lead to the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution". Boats exchanged fire. It later turned out in the first incident we fired first, and in the second incident we responded to ghosts which weren't there. Which means nothing. This started over nothing. And then by passing the resolution we created a powderkeg scenario where the slightest provocation would put us into war. Pure folly. Furthermore, let's not forget this happened on Vietnam's doorstep. The US sending a warships to troll around Vietnam was literally pushing to start a war. If Vietnam had torpedo boats patrolling by Florida we would rightly blame then if gunfire were to start.

2) Regardless of how you feel about communism, this war was the US exerting itself over a very alien and very foreign nation because we didn't like the progress communism was making there and around the world. How can that be justified? It is quite audacious for the US to meddle in self determination of foreign peoples. Frankly, our continued practice in doing that is partly what inflames our enemies today and keeps drawing us into expensive foreign wars. We go asking for a fight and then when the locals try to give one to us we act like we're the victims.

Do your own history homework!

LOL

I actually have much to offer on this, as somebody who is a history buff and has read extensively on the topic.

And whose grandfather was KIA there during the Tet Offensive in 1968.

I'll decide if I'm up to delving into that bastard of a war on these forums.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm sure you'll get some opinions. Most of them I'll informed. Except for Saint Now, who is a Nam vet.

I wouldn't hold my breath for your responders providing those two source links, though. I provide links all the time here and am lambasted for it.

Go figure.

Later.