Forty Years Ago Today: My Lai

On March 16, 1968 soldiers from Charlie Company, 1st Battalion 20th Infantry, massacred more than 300 civilians in the hamlet of My Lai near the northern coast of South Vietnam. In an act of revenge for the killing of a popular sergeant by a Vietcong booby trap, they gunned down men, women and children indiscriminately. It’s believed that none of those shot were Vietcong as the American soldiers had been spotted approaching My Lai, giving any Vietcong plenty of time to clear out.

The army suppressed news of the massacre for 18 months but when it was revealed, out of 25 men indicted, only Lt. William Calley received a prison sentence. President Nixon later commuted Calley’s sentence to 3 years’ house arrest.

During Calley’s trial the Vietnam Veterans Against the War held the Winter Soldier hearings in which dozens of them testified that they had seen similar war crimes in Vietnam, thus demoralizing even supporters of the war.

On the night of the massacre after the soldiers had pulled out, the Vietcong were back in My Lai helping to bury the dead. It took 5 days. One Vietnamese man from a nearby hamlet said, “I was not a Communist before, but after the shootings, all the villagers became communists.”

 

The peace loving VietCong and NVA troops cut the arm off of any child they found who had been vaccinated by US personnel. There were atrocities committed by both sides.

 

Well Said.

God Bless The Troops!

 

While My Lai stands out for the horrors that ocurred there, there is always atrocity and horror where war is found.

 

The fact that there are "always atrocities" during war does not excuse the My Lai incident. Nor does the fact that the "other side did it, too".

The issue of war crimes in general is one of the great moral conundrums of history. Soldiers are supposed to obey orders without question. Surely, a military cannot operate effectively if they do not. So who is guilty here, the one giving the order or the one carrying it out?

Well, the question was made clearer by a clarification in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which I believe came about after the My Lai incident, to the effect that soldiers are only duty-bound to obey lawful orders. Orders that break the law, including the rules of war, are not required to be followed.

However, during the heat of battle, with the sounds of gunfire echoing in your ears, if your platoon leader orders you to shoot, it cannot be easy to determine how "lawful" that order is. Undoubtedly, there are cases where unlawful orders are given and carried out, and what would be called "atrocities" are the result.

From what I know of the My Lai incident, it was abundantly clear that the villagers were unarmed and were not VC. In hindsight, there was certainly no military justification to force them into a ditch and shoot them indiscriminately. There is never justification for raping the women and mutilating the corpses.

I cannot hope to explain what went through Lt. Calley's mind that day, but many of the men in the unit refused to take part in the massacre. And not that should really matter, but from all accounts, Lt. Calley was not considered to be an effective officer and was not liked or respected by his men.

The cover-up by higher-ranking officers was shameful, as well. None of them were prosecuted, as I recall.

I know war is hell. I know it can sometimes be hard to tell exactly who in the hell the enemy is. But the My Lai incident was straightforward. You do not line up hundreds of unarmed civilians, even if they are technically the "enemy", and shoot them in cold blood.

 

And long before this came the Nuremberg trials where nazi officers and officials were sentenced to hanging or prison even though they were "just following orders". We knew that under the nazi regime that if these men hadn't followed those orders they would have been shot, but we sentenced them anyway. If we're going to hold people accountable under those circumstances, shouldn't we hold our own people accountable?

And yet some people feel that it's okay to just follow orders because, after all, they're American orders. We're the good guys and we can do no wrong. Lt. Calley may have been a tad overzealous and in retrospect could have shown a little more restraint, but hey, what's done is done and we shouldn't play Monday-night quarterback.

Yeah right. I say evil is evil no matter who the perpetrator is. We should never forget My Lai, especially if we intend to be "the good guys".

 

Extremely well-said, granny. You put your finger on the issue beautifully.

As for me, I say "God bless the troops", too. They sure as hell deserve it, and I'm glad to see how attitudes toward them have changed since the days when I was one of them. But that does not excuse the cold-blooded massacre of innocent civilians.

Now, will somebody explain to me the difference between My Lai and Hiroshima?

 

Good question.

 

Thanks for the memories.

 

I'm a veteran of both Kosovo and the Iraq War. I served 20 years with the Navy (retired in 2008). There is no excuse for US soldiers to commit atrocities such as My Lai in Viet Nam or Haditha in Iraq. Granny Longhair is right. While those of us are required to obey lawful orders; we do not have to obey immoral orders. There is a fine line between the two but I firmly believe that most people are fully capable of discerning right from wrong and that they should follow their moral beliefs. During my last year in the service, I drew a lot of flack for opening saying that the torture of prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay was a war crime and those guilty should be held accountable for it. I still stand by those beliefs. We must always hold the moral high ground no matter what the enemy does.

 

there was alot of that going on and alot of bravery too. these guys at mai lai were found out at the time is all.that's well known anyway..but it was hot and it was terrible.

 

even before i saw footage of the mass killings i knew we were in the wrong place and should never have been there in the 1st place!

 

I'm careing for a Vietnam Vet. I have alot of brothers who went. Now these young folks comin home with some of the same complaints,
it's heart breaking. The VA is bein stubborn, I wonder how long the ignorance will go on,, over history it just keeps happening. War is bad for all concerned. I understand sometimes evil dictators need to be brought down. But when we turn to becoming the dictators what then? Every year we are treated to in country military practice at the Rainbow Gathering, I wish we could use new technology for the better of us as a world, but greed and chaos always seem to be gettin the best of us as time goes on. I send love to the troops, they have a fine young man among them, my son! I grew up security military,,,, I dont dig any thing I saw as far as military govt. stuff goes. I am glad to have been able to have seen some of the world, it helped shape my strong Mother Earth type self! Blessings to all, may your lights shine on-ward no matter what!!! Also, thanks for reminding us,,,,,

 

So very true. To say that war never accomplishes anything is to be naive. But you have to know when to quit. It's heart-breaking that we apparently didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam. The Iraq war has now dragged on for nine years! And when we finally pull out of that area, it will go back to the way it was before we went, just like Vietnam did.

 

I think it is because Duh'bya, who had a chance to experience Vietnam but got out of it because of his infuential family, was too stupid to realize that he was doing the same thing again, putting us into another war that we cannot win.

 

The nuking of Hiroshima was done with the intention of saving lives in the long run. Unlike My Lai, it served a purpose in the United States' strategy and single-handedly ended the war in the Pacific.

That said, nuking Hiroshima was unnecessary, evil and outrageously over the top. But at least it had a purpose of some sort in the war. My Lai was just a bunch of herp derp retards with guns who were too damn stupid to figure out that those civilians didn't kill their sergeant.

It's also worth noting that the United States military apparently sanctions the mass murder of innocent civilians, considering those at the top did it themselves with Hiroshima and then they covered up the incident in My Lai.

 

I would never say that intentions don't matter, but in either case here the net result was the same: innocent civilians being slaughtered. Philosophical points don't mean much when all that's left of you is a shadow on a concrete wall.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Truman would bomb Hiroshima today. The long years of the cold war altered everyone's thinking about nuclear weapons. Their use is so horrifying, I suppose, because they are akin to the power source of the universe, and they are materially different from something like the fire bombing of Dresden, for instance.

"I am become death ... shatterer of worlds." As true today as when first written thousands of years ago.

 

Yea, I wasn't justifying the use of the atomic bomb, I was simply stating that it was different in that it was actually used for a reason.

 

Yes I know. I didn't mean to imply that.

 

But let's face it, if Truman hadn't used the atomic bomb he would have been villified for that. The invasion of Japan would have resulted in horrendous loss of life on both sides, including millions of civilians who were prepared to attack allied soldiers with whatever weapons they could use, from homemade bombs down to kitchen knives.

In the Japanese mindset then, surrender wasn't an option. They would fight to the death or commit suicide rather than surrender. The kamikaze attacks show how far they were willing to go.

Yes dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an evil act but it gave the Japanese an option to surrender while "saving face". It showed we could annhilate them without giving them a chance to fight back, thus bringing an end to the most terrible war ever fought. But what good ever came out of the My Lai massacre?