Debates like these are why international law now tends to speak of 'armed conflict' instead of 'war'. Certainly the casualty count on both sides makes Vietnam

Debates like these are why international law now tends to speak of 'armed conflict' instead of 'war'. Certainly the casualty count on both sides makes Vietnam count as a 'war'. And yet, Congress actually declaring a state of war would have given Presidents Kennedy or Johnson vast and sweeping powers, which was something that Congress would be loath to do when the President was already able to kill Commies sufficiently well by simply letting him engage in 'armed conflict' without the state of 'war'.