Jus Post Bellum (WWII and Vietnam)

Both in section and during Dustin's guest lecture, we talked about Walzer's "Just War" theory. We focused on 3 main areas, which were: Jus as Bellum (Justice to war), Jus in Bello (Justice in war) and Jus post Bellum (justice after war).

http://academic.reed.edu/anthro/adprojects/2011/greaves_mercado/DieselAnalysis.html

For most (including myself), the Jus as Bellum was the most interesting because it actually deals with how war is handled as it is taking place. However, I was also intrigued at the Jus post Bellum aspect of war, which talks about how what happens when the war is over. We talked about quite a few characteristics of justice after war, but the one area the interested me what the part on discrimination, especially in dealing with soldiers after the war has ended. Being a history major, I find it interesting to look at how soldiers are treated upon their return to home, and for this particular blog, I would like to talk about the different homecoming that soldiers received from WWII and the Vietnam War.

When we think about the end of WWII, there are a few distinct images that come to mind. For me, I think about the soldiers and how they were looked at upon their return to the United States, and were greeted with great celebrations and a nation that was very proud of their boys.

On the other hand, when I think of Vietnam soldiers returning home, a very different image comes to mind. I couldn't find a great image of this, but from everything that I have been told, the soldiers returning from Vietnam were often met with parades and people that were proud of their sons for serving, but the utter dissent about the Vietnam War weighed heavy on some people. When I think of the ending of WWII, I think about entire cities coming out to welcome home their boys, but with Vietnam, images of only close family waiting to see their sons comes to mind. Here is a video of Sen. John McCain's homecoming from Vietnam. I would have thought that there would have been a much bigger celebration for his return.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/life_20.html

Now, it is somewhat difficult to make the argument that I am trying to make, but to me, it just seemed like Americans were much more grateful for soldier's service during WWII, compared to Vietnam. After WWII, it seemed like the federal government and other agencies did their best to take care of the returning soldiers, by passing things like the G.I. Bill, and setting up lots of programs to help veterans get settled after returning. However, when we think about Vietnam, we hear about how veterans were treated like shit when they returned home, and how many of them ended up homeless, or addicted to drugs, etc. Now, I think that it is important to remember that WWII and Vietnam took place at very different points in history, and I think that the American culture had undergone some great changes during that time period.

http://homelesschicago.wordpress.com/

For me, the whole concept of Jus Post Bellum and with returning soldiers is heavily dependant on how people felt about the actual war and some of the actions that take place during war. I feel that the two wars differ because most Americans were in favor of WWII, and showed tremendous support for the war, while, on the other hand, there was a very large amount of outcry against the Vietnam War. There are many reasons why people did not believe in the Vietnam War, and actually opposed the war completely. Personally, the one big item is that I don't think there was necessarily a clear, identifiable enemy during the Vietnam War, because it was often difficult to distinguish between an enemy and an ally. I think that the United States took a very proactive approach, and they used the "better safe than sorry" approach to battle, which plays into the Dirty Hands concept a little bit, as well as the Jus in Bello. I feel that the military strategy of the United States during the Vietnam War was to blow up everything because chances were, the people there were either the enemy or were aiding and abetting the enemy in some form, therefore it was much safer to just blow up the whole place, because it wasn't worth losing American lives.
Now, to people back home, this is going to have an impact when people see innocent children being killed by American weaponry, and there is going to be some disagreement from these actions.

Overall, I just find it interesting to look at the differences between WWII and Vietnam, especially with how soldiers are viewed, especially when returning home. I feel that Jus post Bellum is a very important item when looking at the whole idea of war in general, and I really found Walzer's piece to be both insightful and very interesting.