Vietnam & After

pulling out is fast is not the answer

Mike Nizza, author of an article in the NY times, quoted Bush:

“One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like “boat people,” “re-education camps,” and “killing fields””.

 This shows the point of view of Bush and his supporters. The reality of the current situation is a mirrored image of Vietnam: withdrawing too fast isn’t the best solution at this point. This also can be another tool that the presidential administration can use to carry out their foreign policy goals.

Thanks for Posting!

Thanks for posting.  The semester is over and done.  Thank you for all of your hard work.  Have a pleasant holiday.

S.O.P. or P.O.S?

After viewing SOP in class i found myself in shock of the way the Military Intelligence officers handled there potential threats.  YES ! POTENTIAL THREATS!  Granted here in America insurance companies put most young drivers or problem attic drivers in a assigned risk pool as well do banks when lending money to people with poor credit but typically they just pay a little more and after a certain time we get standard rates.  But how long were these people going to stay captive until someone was released.  I know i can't assume what they have to go through on a day to day basis or the threats they face but I know their captives bleed, breath and love just like I do.  That is some ones son, some ones father, cousin, nephew, big brother, uncles, however you want to slice it.  Imagine that being your brother being held captive for x amount of time just because he might do something and he of age to possibly do it.  I think if they had something to say after 1 day of abuse it would come out.  I'm happy the photo's were taken but they were taken for the wrong reasons.  They were taken to glorify all the wrong someone could do to another human.  Humiliation, torture and death.  Standard Operating Procedure or Pieces of Shit? Guess those who got jail time know the answer to that.

Can't have one without the other

    There are always two sides to every story, and in My Lai by Mrs. Ha Thi Qui we find out the Vietnamese perspective on tragic day of February 26, 1968. Mrs. Ha Thi Qui explains that this morning was like any another morning, and seeing the American troops represented just another patrol or stroll through the village.

    While reading and learning about My Lai, i was completely shocked from an American perspective. I never thought that men with our flag on their arm's could and would commit such an horrendous crime. Of course i thought about the peopleand their deaths, but i never thought how the shock effected them. In this reading except, she says "they gave the children candy." Imagine how unexpected it would be to have a trusted neighbor who has been in contact with your child, coming back and killing him. Not just your family, your entire village. All that you have known. These people didn't run because they felt they didn't have to. They never thought that a large scale killing spree would take place. They were unarmed, and unaware of what would happen on that day. The enormous amount of feelings that people of My Lai must have felt would be indescribable. To them, they were tricked into believing that these American troops were going to help, or at least not bother them at all. Because of their trust, many of them died.

    Before the Vietnam war even started, Ho Chin Minh respected and idolized America and looked for them to help his country fight for their independence. I don't think Minh or any person at that time thought America would be the one to fight a modernize tech-no war on this small Indo China country. After the war started, we still had many people in Vietnam who trusted us. After My Lai, the South Vietnamesee who thought of our troops as bringing candy, shattered the trust and respect they had for us. In order for the My Lai massacre to occur the American's had to dehumanize the South Vietnamese people who they murdered. In order for the South Vietnamese to comprehend the massacre at My Lai, they had to dehumanize the Americans, who they no longer viewed as peaceful people, but as murderers.

Personal Responsibility

    While watching S.O.P. I was struck by the completely unapologetic attitude of Lynndie England. I cannot understand how someone who did things clearly outside of any ethical construct could remain so cold. Her explanations that it "didn't seem out of the ordinary at the time" ring hollow when she later  blames her misjudgments on her feelings toward Graner, her boyfriend at the time.
    The explanations that the procedures were entirely to discomfort and humiliate the prisoners in order to extract information doesn't make sense, either. Afterall, how can a prisoner be further humiliated by smiling faces, pictures, and thumbs-up signals if he can't see them due to blindfolds. Even in situations would theoretically call for "alternative" means of information extraction, I hardly think it's expected to be enjoyed by the inflictors. Abu Ghraib seems to have been filled with a company of uninhibited sadists. The claim of "just following orders" seems completely ludcris when compared to the bravery exhibited by Hugh Thompson Jr., who defied much more extreme orders during the My Lai massacre and saved a group of innocent Vietnamese from a slaughter. With examples like that, there can hardly be claims of "just following orders" being the only method of survival.

The My Lai Genocide...

Reading the packet on My Lai was very disturbing and unreal.

" A: Babies. And we all huddled them up. We made them squat down, and Lieutenant Calley came over and said your know what to do with them, dont you? and I said yes so I took it for granted that he just wanted us to watch them. And he left, and came back about 10 to 15 minutes later, and said, how come you ain't killed them yet? And I told him that I didn't think you wanted us to kill them, that you just wanted us to guard them. He said, no, I want them dead." Meadlo

 

" All the houses had burned. They had cut all the trees down in the orchards. They killed everyone. There were dead bodies all over the village. I took a little dead baby back to the house from the roadside. It was my daughter's child." Mrs. Ha Thi Qui

I don't know how anyone in their right mind could commit such acts. These killings are just down right wrong. I thought the point to a war was to kill the enemy, the one your fighting against, not innocent civilians. What makes it worse is the fact that these American soliders went into the homes of these innocent people and killed them. Not even picking them up off the street. They went into the private places of these people and violated them. They killed babies I dont know what to say to that or even what to think. It's disgusting to know we actually did such crimes and were that evil. It's crazy to know this went on and it's not a joke.

Not our American boys.

On March 16, 1968 what took place in My Lai, was the unthinkable. American men, fathers, sons, friends, grandchildren shot and killed hundreds of Vietnamese men,women,children,elders and babies. The shock of the events on that infamous day still has the ability to anger and upset people such as myself who have no direct connection to the . When most Americans think of our troops, they think of strong young men defending this great country with honor, dignity and respect. The kind of young gentlemen who open doors and pull out chairs for ladies. It is very hard to have this kind of view point and also hear and read about the massacre that took place in My Lai. When first exposed to the information i was appalled. I found it almost unbelievable that these men were in fact the men representing this country. What really stood out was that only one of these men were tried and convicted of war crimes. Each who shot an innocent young child instantly became a monster in my eyes and no longer represnted the heroes i thought them to be.

I thought it was only fair to read the soldier's perspective, and by reading Paul Meadlo's testimony you can see how these were the exact men i thought them to be, but Vietnam and the death they were surrounded by changed them. Meadlo did not deny or hide what he and his fellow men had done in My Lai. Three times when asked about killing babies, he answered, " and babies." Meadlo made real the fact that these men were being killed everyday but could never have the chance to get revenge on those that were killing their " good buddies", such as his friend Bobby Wilson. This solider explained how when he was killing, he felt good, because it was finally his chance to take revenge on those who killed his friends. What comes to mind is the fact that in order to kill you have to dehumanize the enemy. It would be inhumane for these men to kill an older lady and say, i just shot someones grandmother. The young children to them represented the spans of their enemy. As soon as they were older enough, they like their VC father would begin to kill and attack their enemy, America. I feel this is the only way to rationalize and understand the solider's point of view. I am still disgusted and i do not agree with their actions, but i also feel that they don't agree with their actions. Meadlo can now openly say he has nightmares and dreams about those that were killed, but on March 16, 1968 i don't think any one of those men could clearly think about the aftermath. Im not sure anymore if I am upset with the fact that none of the soldiers were convicted. I am still very upset that those put into a position of leadership and example were the were issues the commands to kill, and were unable to help control these boys from losing their grip on reality and morals. To me, those are the real criminals of My Lai.

Techno War?

During the course of the semester we have been taking much from Gibson’s “The Perfect War” During the course of the class we have also been integrating the concept of this “Techno war” phenomenon. As stated in class war is an assembly line. If you think about it there was labor needed for production, we had new technology, and we had the capital to back up the whole operation. We had to understand how the military measured the success of the war also. The American public wanted to win, but at what cost? We did not want to lose American soldiers in doing so. There had to be a formula that was cost effective. We had to wage war however on the flip side minimize American casualties. We had to increase technological ideas and production. This was the foundation of the techno war. It became evident that the Vietnamese could not wage war against us with all of our advancements. We were out producing them plain and simple. This seemed like a good idea on paper. If we bring our helicopters and land them in fields to let out more troops then we will become more mobile. However this was not the case instead of the marines being covert and able to move quickly the Vietnamese could hear us coming thus anticipating attacks. They knew they had a certain time frame to follow when they heard us and if they thought they could put up a good fight they waited in the bushes until our troops were deployed. So this system did not really work for us. They were under the impression that if they just kept picking at US forces we would leave them alone. To them they had all day. To us we just wanted to win, and win fast. When we engaged the enemy with small arms and machine guns the US then had to call for air support to back the troops. The Vietnamese knew this also so they knew when we fought back for a certain time the planes would soon come out of the sky and bomb them. When we take a look at chapter five we see according to pentagon papers that Westmoreland made the following assessments: “That the VC would fight until convinced that military victory was impossible and then would not be willing to endure further punishment, that the CHICOM’s would not intervene except to provide aid and advice, that friendly forces would maintain control of the air over RVN.” (Gibson 95). To us we won (Techno War side) however to the Vietnamese it just seemed like they had all day. This just sheds light to the old saying "Patience is a virtue"

Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam

I find Martin Luther Kings Jr. 's outlook on this whole situation very brave. Although he was a preacher he still stands up and defends his fellow African Americans in the home front and abroad fighting the war. He speaks of the poor, and how he feels that the war is taking from not only the black community but also the white. He goes on to further add that we were putting in too much effort and funding into a nonsense war, when the efforts could be used at home, where it was more important. "I knew that America would never invest the neccessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube." his views were quite clear, he goes on to add that not only was it a horrible situation, but to add to it, we were losing American lives which was the main concern. "We were taking the young black men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem." He goes on to make correlations between the home front and Vietnam dealing mainly with the treatment of not only whites but mostly Blacks. I find his speech / statement rather interesting and applaud him for all his efforts. I think this type of message needed to be heard at the time. I think he did in fact say it all in the right way too. His points are all valid and it is a true testament to the type of person he was and still continues to be through his works and messages that are still read to this very day.

War Crimes?

"The guiding practice of past war crimes prosecutions has been that crime is something that can only be charged against a loser. Perhaps this explains why successive presidents have felt so intensely anxious not to loose their war in Vietnam." - Daniel Ellsberg

From the rice paddies of My Lai to the sands of Haditha, the specter of injustice looms over the moral authority of the United States. No U.S. Commander-in-Chief has ever been prosecuted in an international court for war crimes. The allegation itself would seem absurd to most Americans living at any point in our nation's history. So, what is a war crime? If it is not the murdering of innocent civilians facilitated through military aero-technology from the sky above, then would a "face-to-face" killing of an innocent civilian constitute a war crime? And if so, how come so few American combatants have been prosecuted and sentenced for such crimes? So few have gone before a judge even when we are certain of many instances of deplorable acts of violence perpetrated by members of the U.S. Military.

Even after excluding the heinous effects of mass bombing campaigns on civilian populations, it seems that very few Americans have been brought to justice for war crimes, in the traditional sense of a "face-to-face" murder.

"It will be difficult, politically, to extend the notion of "crimes against humanity" to include Anglo-American wartime triumphs of firepower against civilians, as in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and now the free-fire zones of South Vietnam. Yet it would be shocking and perverse to condemn only rape and murder in wartime while continuing to tolerate the strategic bombing of noncombatants." - Daniel Ellsberg