Carl, re: "Atrocities are universal in war, but what is also universal is an inclination to minimize one's own side's contribution and to maximize the other. Humans love to gossip. Even in the verifiable historical absence of any atrocities at all, stories of atrocities will still be rumored.
In the context of Vietnam you write that "[t]here's no denying that there were atrocities, as there were convictions for some of them. Where the left is wrong is in suggesting that atrocities were common. Where the right is wrong is in minimizing the amount of atrocities.
But I do believe that atrocities were common in Vietnam and the basis for that belief is not solely based on "gossip." I think that war was tailor made to create a climate that virtually guaranteed that atrocities would commonly occur. Part of my belief is based on common sense, part is based on the "rumors" and "gossip" you reference, and part is based upon my knowledge of the command climate of our leaders in Vietnam and the attitudes of the men I served with there.
Setting aside the "rumors," consider that the path to promotion for most officers at the platoon level up to the division command level was "body count." That required that contact be made, firefights ensue and the number of enemy dead far exceed the amount of American casualties. Think about that.
Think about what kind of attitudes develop when the "mission" is not to take a piece of ground or defend it but rather to simply "kill and kill a lot." The goal, simply stated, is to create a lot of blown up, shot, and dead bodies. And for THAT you get rewarded. How much caution and care do you think that "mission" fostered in the attack dogs sent to maim and destroy. How many officers do you think gave a speech that said; "I want you to seek out, blow up and kill every gook you find without hesitation, remorse or mercy, and, by the way, if you shoot the wrong people I'll have your ass?"
I can tell you that in most units they didn't get the "have your ass" speech. Dead civilians were written off before they were cool. In My Lai, in the Tiger Force, in combat units and in chopper and bomber units, it's likely that almost all of those who went up the ladder to complain were told to shut up and get back to work. Because NO OFFICER wanted a big black mark beside his name when his whole CARREER depended on this golden opportunity to get his combat ticket punched with a gold star beside his name. The proof of this is in the handling of the known incidents and the lack of prosecution in many other suspected incidents THAT WERE REPORTED.
So start with the assumption that the troops had a virtual green light to commit atrocities. Add in the fact that death was very, very common in Vietnam with tens or hundreds of Vietnamese dead each of the middle years of the war so that men became inoculated against the horror of death. Then add in the most compelling element of all; the very nature of the war.
In Vietnam there were many areas where the civilian populations were in the middle of active enemy attack zones. In fact in many of those areas the enemy came from the ranks of the civilian populations and melted back into them for concealment, shelter, support and recruitment.
Imagine that you were a combat soldier working in areas where there were lots of villages. Your company, your platoon, and your squad was constantly under the threat of attack. Booby traps took your buddies lives or left them legless and screaming in pain. Snipers hit you from a distance and could strike at any time from any place. Little kids led you into ambushes. Women provided intelligence to the enemy on your movements. Everyone you saw seemed to have a look of thinly veiled hatred. And no matter how hard you got hit or how many friends you lost, there seemed to be no one to shoot back at. They just melted away into the villages and although you knew they were there, you didn't know who they were. Was it that old man, that teenager, that little 12 year old kid, that woman carrying rice in two buckets strung across her back?
You didn't know who it was but you knew they were there in those villages and you knew those villagers were helping, supporting and supplying them. And you were scared shitless and angry as hell because you'd lost friends and you could be next.
How many people do you know in those circumstances who wouldn't find some excuse to call in an artillery or bomb strike on the village, or to retaliate against any single sniper shot from that direction by opening up on the village? Or worse yet, how many do you know who would actually pull the trigger on the defenseless men and women in the village the way almost the entire Calley company did in My Lai.
If you say that's not human nature then you haven't been around frightened angry people. Sure there are people who rise above that fear and do the right thing, but they're the exception, not the rule.
So when you try to compare the years those situations existed throughout a significant percentage of Vietnam, with events in other wars, think about the "facts on the ground," and then ask yourself whether the rotten stew that was Vietnam might have had something to do with the commonality of the atrocities that those like Kerry and I, and a lot of others, are convinced were endemic in Vietnam. |
