My Lai Massacre Essay

"The words "My Lai" are synonymous with a significant breakdown in leadership" (Rielly 17). Implying that the whole event of the My Lai Massacre was a giant lack of success in leadership from Military Officers and government officials. Research shows the failure of the United States Military knowing the difference between the enemy along with morals by the same leadership involved in the My Lai Massacre. The tragic event of the My Lai Massacre occurred On March 16, 1968. Involving the soldiers of Charlie's Company (a platoon in the United States Army) and the citizens of My Lai, (in the village of Son My) in which the Army was ordered to destroy the village and leave nothing behind. When the United States Army arrived at the scene they lined

up innocent women, children, and elders and killed them while there was no retaliation upon the United States Military.

Many of the women were also raped before being shot and killed. Soldiers being misinformed of their rights during the Massacre has changed the way the United States Military is trained. The My Lai Massacre is important to history in understanding what really happened, the mindset that generals and soldiers form in the atmosphere of war, the morality of war itself, government secrecy, and how military training is changing from the atrocity that is called a Massacre.

Throughout the Vietnam War, the soldier's often saw Vietnam as dangerous territory full of the enemy. Truda Gray and Brian Martin, both specialized in sociology and are frequent contributors of Sociological articles; in addition, the reading My Lai: The Struggle over Outrage detailed an analysis of various parts of the My Lai Massacre. William Calley (the General of the

platoon involved in the massacre) stated, "At last it had dawned on me, [t]hese people, they're all the VC... Everyone there was VC. The old men, the women, the children— the babies were all VC or would be VC in about three years. And inside of VC women, I guess there were a thousand little VC now" (Gray and Martin 97). Lieutenant Calley, general of the United States Military shows how the soldiers perceived not only the Vietcong but also the civilians living in Vietnam. Implying that the U.S. could not tell the difference between the enemy and civilians. Also, in Gray and Martin’s article its says "If the target of an attack is perceived as, or worthless, degraded, evil, then many people will be less upset than if the target is of high status. As an assault on an innocent child is treated as more reprehensible than an assault on a serial killer. Therefore, devaluing the target can be an effective way of reducing outrage from an attack" (96). Therefore, claiming that they viewed the enemy as less than human making it easier for them to have no guilt about killing innocent women or child. This makes it clear how the military could kill innocent people, while in the mindset of seeing all Vietnamese citizens as the enemy. Although creating a justified answer for the event to occur, the moral reasoning behind the Massacre was absent.

The moral standings of war are not specific, it depends on the moral standings of the soldier himself.

Many immoral orders were given the day of the My Lai Massacre, but it is questionable how a military soldier would react to such vulgar commands. Within the United States Military, there were laws set up to protect a soldier’s morality and whether it is lawful or crucial to obey to have success in the war. William Cockerham and Lawrence Cohen, author and sociologist chair of the University of Alabama, elaborated on the morals of the My Lai Massacre in their article “Obedience to Orders: Issues of Morality and Legality in Combat among U.S. Army Paratroopers.” In the article, Cokerham and Cohen wrote, “A major question in the Calley proceedings was not so much whether the order was actually given, but whether a reasonable man should have followed such orders had been issued” (1274). Also, within the article of “Obedience to Orders,” it discusses, “most wars contain at least some unjust and immoral elements, but professional career-oriented soldiers… may clearly believe that soldiers had better carry out legal orders or else risk placing the country in grave danger” (Cokerham and Cohen 1277). These two pieces of evidence oppose each other when discussing whether immorality occurs in war. War does not specifically have a laid-out line of what is right and wrong, especially on the topic of being killed or killing others. However, the first quote entails that it is up to the

soldier to defend what he believes is right and whether to take orders or not. The counterpart in comparing these two factors is that the soldiers will have to take responsibility for whether their country will succeed. Soldiers must understand that if they choose to disobey an order there could be great consequences.

There are many factors that went into indicating the reasoning of the event of the My Lai Massacre including the commands given to the soldiers and the feelings the soldiers had toward the Vietnamese. Robert Rielly, a retired Lieutenant of the United States Army, wrote an article on the factors that affected and caused the My Lai Massacre in the writing, “The Inclination for War Crimes.” In the Rielly’s article, it states, “neither units not individual members of Task Force Barker and the 11th Brigade received the proper training in the Law of War, the safeguarding of noncombatants, of the rules of engagement.” Many soldiers at the time were unaware of their rights especially those participating in the My Lai Massacre. Along with what Gray and Martin conveyed in their article explaining how the Pentagon officials stated that the four major men with a main part of the massacre were “misfits” and did not attend “prestigious military academies” the officials viewed this information helpful to the investigation and also explained that if the generals were trained properly the atrocity would have never happened or been hidden from the government (100). This shows that the generals failed to thoroughly communicate to the soldiers their rights. However, the generals were not taught the correct Laws of the soldiers either, unless going to high-ranking Military schools. Rielly also revealed information about how the “[s]oldiers from Charlie Company I-20 Infantry, in particular, were apprehensive and frustrated by the number of casualties the unit had suffered from mines and booby traps and from their inability to establish any contact with the enemy. This relays that some soldiers were not as hesitant in killing Vietnamese citizens because they saw it as a form of revenge. On top of orders to kill, the soldiers contained anger that had been built up toward the enemy so when given the opportunity to strike they took it even though the means were not justified. Since the behavior was considered unjustified, there are many quality reasons for trying to hide the Massacre.