If a war is to be waged between two states, it is vital for the declaring state to confirm that the war is being fought for the right reasons. This principle is closely tied to the idea of "just cause." A just cause cannot be used as direct excuse to engage in war which is being fought in response to something other than the received wrong or threat. A just cause may often be accompanied by other intentions which could be deemed by the individual as just or unjust. In 2003, America entered Iraq upon Saddam Hussein declaring possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many American citizens believe this to be a just cause for war. However, if America's true intentions were to secure western oil access, many would deem the cause to be unjust. Though a war might have multiple intentions, it is not necessarily deemed unjust. The war in Afghanistan helped to stop the migration of heroin to Britain's streets. This intent alone does not completely justify bringing war upon a country and its citizens. However, Afghanistan's responsibility for acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001 may provide just cause for these actions. Deciding whether intentions are right or wrong can be difficult, as many disagreements tend to be made. For example, war between state 1 and state 2 is imminent, and state 1 has a military which strongly overpowers state 2. State 2 has never shown aggression towards state 1 and is fighting out of defense, making state 2 the victim. State 2, which has long despised the terrorist state 1, declares war simply out of opportunity. However, state 3 has no relationship nor interest in state 2. One individual might deem state 3's actions just for battling terrorism and saving state from invasion or destruction. Another individual might find state 3's actions to be unjust, because state 3 never received aggression from state 1, nor is the state actually concerned about state. .
It is not permissible for a state to order its soldiers to fight a war in which there is little hope of victory.