It's much easier to justify going to war if you were attacked first. If we quickly look at U.S. history, we find this to be true many times: Mexico attacked U.S. forces first in the Mexican-American War, Germany sunk the Lusitania which riled up America to get into World War I, and Japan attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor in World War II.
Being the guy who got hit first makes it much easier to accept the idea that hitting back is the right thing to do…which is exactly what is outlined in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
Questions About Revenge
- Did America go to war in Vietnam for revenge, or for something else?
- What role did revenge play in America's involvement in Vietnam?
- If Vietnam really did attack two American ships, is all-out war the best response?
- What evidence exists to suggest that American ships were actually attacked at all?
Chew on This
Congress only played the revenge card in order to rile up feelings of animosity and justification, with the greater goal of going to war to stop the spread of communism.
Being attacked first is always a good justification to go to war, otherwise it makes the attacked nation look weak powerless.