4 ms·
> There are a lot of My Lai's and William Calley's in other countries throughout history. But far fewer Hugh Thompson's and to me that's the 'real' America. Th
by abalone 8y ago
> There are a lot of My Lai's and William Calley's in other countries throughout history. But far fewer Hugh Thompson's and to me that's the 'real' America.
There were a lot of My Lai’s in Vietnam. Biggest misconception is that it was some kind of fluke. But in a “war” where entire civillian populated areas were designated “free fire zones” where you could kill anything that moves, civillian massacres were the norm. Not every solider did it of course but it was a regular feature of that war.
It is good to recognize brave soldiers that resisted. But we must be respectful enough of those who were murdered to not attempt to rehabilitate the image of America in Vietnam by pretending those resisters were the norm or represented the true spirit of America and what it was aiming for or some such sentimental nationalist nonsense. As the article notes, a My Lai happened every month in Vietnam. Civillian mass murder was an explicit goal and the U.S. was very good at it.
- Pica_soO 8y agoIts one of those features of asymmetric warfare, that you can drag the enemy into the moral-mud-pits of combating opposition among the civilian population. For the opposite side this has the benefit of getting new recruits among the relatives and survivors and obviously of leading a far superior enemy by the noose ring through the public arena -which raises Opposition in a democracy - and reduces combat effectiveness in the military in dictatorships and democracy's (sovjet afghanistan). I would really love to have the CIAs Information on how much vietnamese population was in active opposition to the american "police" action. My estimate would be around 75 %.
- michaelmrose 8y agoIf the Vianamese were over here what percentage of Americans would be in active opposition immediately? What percentage after almost everyone saw friends and relatives slaughtered?
- Pica_soO 8y agoThe problem is, that it to the politicians of the time made absolut sense. Socialism seemed unstoppable, while spreading through the world. The US never understood that nationalism in the released colonys always dressed up as opposition to the politics of the leaving colonial force- which usually was capitalistic. Declaring war, should be a slower process, with plenty of time to disprove lies and allowing for illusions to fail. At the same time, the UN should have been able to resolve some issues more practically: Major parts of the world would have benefited from a reallocation and consolidation of areas (of future nations), not by colonial markers on maps, but by by ethnicity -as it happened between India and Pakistan. Imagine that very same boiling battlefield that was/is Iraq and Syria, but instead with two half-merged nation states having nukes. Delusions are strong on both sides of the political spectrum.
- GuardianCaveman 8y agoAs the article quotes one soldier there was a mai Lai every month. You make it sound like this was a fact in the article. One unnamed soldier claimed that. And I think the free fire zones were much more centered on artillery and air strikes and not ground infiltrations just walking and shooting whomever they wanted to, but it’s still horrible the disregard for human life. But to state as you do that civilian mass murder was the goal, that’s false. The goal was war of attrition of actual combatants. What they did was not care or let civilian casualties stop them from trying to carry out that goal. Still horrible but come on there is enough bad stuff to point to without exaggeration and misleading.
- abalone 8y agoThat is pure unresearched wishful thinking. They would fly helicopters up to farmers on a field who would look up at them in confusion and do nothing. Then they'd turn on a siren and when the farmers scattered they shot them all down for taking "evasive action", making them "combatants". There'd be reports of raids with hundreds of "viet cong" killed and a few weapons recovered. The killing machine was about body counts. Kissinger ordered "anything that flies on everything that moves." Villages were leveled in indiscriminate, massive bombing campaigns that exceeded twice the ordinance dropped in WWII. Millions were killed. If you really want to research what happened in Vietnam start with Nick Turse's Kill Anything That Moves.[1] It's a polemical title but it's based on a ton of primary research, e.g. the Pentagon's War Crimes Working Group and the National Archives and interviews with over a hundred veterans. And that stuff will make any good soul polemical. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250045061/ref=rdr_ext_tmb https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250045061/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
- tomohawk 8y agoIf this was happening all the time, why was the helicopter pilot shocked? Sounds like the crew was equally shocked. > Civilian mass murder was an explicit goal It certainly was - of the North Vietnamese communists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon#Human_rights_after_the_fall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon#Human_rights_af...