From:        DHN

Subject:    RE: [VWF] 'Bob Kerrey did the right thing'

Date:        Wed, 09 May 2001 14:15:27 EDT

Dear Christina,

Does Bob Kerrey have to line up men (yes, men have the right to live, too), women and three-year-old Vietcong to survive (provided that Klann's allegations are true)?

My family was disgusted with the communists' atrocities, that's why my parents found every way to get out of Saigon in 1975; but the revelations about Kerrey and his team are equally disturbing.   

I grew up during the war.  I remember once I went to the province with my father, many peasants told me their grief caused by both sides.  I wonder whether you know that--in the name of containing communism and protecting freedom--the Phoenix Program and the SEALS, quite a few times, had razed whole villages.

The Saigon government lost the war not because it was nice.  If we the middle class South Vietnamese had treated the peasants decently, they wouldn't have taken sides with the Vietcong.

I'm glad that the NY Times and CBS have brought up this issue--so that America can learn from our mistakes.  Unlike other countries, the Americans (I consider myself one of them) are willing to revisit the awful past. DHN

From:        MD

Subject:    RE: [VWF] 'Bob Kerrey did the right thing'

Date:        Wed, 9 May 2001 12:40:19 -0700 (PDT)

But he didn't step up.  This was uncovered by a journalist who got his hands on documents.  If anyone's read the NY Times Magazine article that started this all it opens by pointing out how angry Kerrey is when the investigation started.  That he says he's sorry now after almost 3 years of investigation and as the story breaks on the news, with the publication of the article and the joint 60Minutes II airing doesn't make me sympathetic to his sorrow.  It disturbs me because I thought differently of Kerrey before all of this as went down.  Watching Gerhadt Klann on 60 Minutes II pointed out what this whole story should tell everyone, that War is evil. Kerrey choose to be a part of the special forces and was in command.  Klann points out that at the time he didn't have any reservations about the actions because it was war and these were specially trained forces acting.  They weren't just enlisted grunts who'd been drafted.  

Regardless of whether the victims were innocent civilians or Viet Cong enemy children under the age of 12, women and the elderly - did any of them deserve to be slaughtered in the manner that they were.  They even killed a baby. Enemy or not, it's savage. In Vietnam or anywhere.

That Kerrey has kept it a secret from everyone including his closest family while accepting a medal for this operation, though he says he's never worn it, points out the obvious guilt he's been harboring.    

Anyway - my 2 cents. – M

From:        LHN

Subject:    RE: [VWF] 'Bob Kerrey did the right thing'

Date:        Wed, 9 May 2001 12:57:36 -0700 (PDT)

I should be writing the conclusion of my paper, but these posts have drawn me in...

Another thing to consider is the nature of what a" free strike zone" means.  During the mid to late 60s the ARVN and U.S. had this program called "strategic hamlet (SH)"  so they basically uproot peasants from their ancestral land, raze the village and force the peasants to live in SH surrounding the military bases.  Their reasoning was that the Viet Cong or National Liberation front (as they called themselves) would be less likely to attack the military base if it was surrounded by a live human shield.  Maybe urban folks don't feel as attached to the land, but we are talking about abandoning the land where your ancestors are buried, your mother and father, your grandparents, everyone (and after all, we are the ones who abandoned the land to come here right?  so it's understandable if we don't get the sense of attachment that peasants have to the land).  and "Strategic" does not mean that the land was arable or better.  So now you have a population of dispossessed, disenfranchised landless peasants and if you can't farm the land, then you have to get a wage labor job in the service sector or your family will starve (as opposed to being a more independent farmer who can sustain your family by your own labor.  I'm idealizing a little but you get the picture.  my nha que and proud grandparents were anti-communist but all they wanted was a piece of land to farm and to be left in peace.  not that they found that here.).  So then the US and ARVN "cleared" those freestrike areas by carpetbombing/other military actions.  After that, anyone in those zones was considered a VC.  So if you were a nonpartisan peasant and you wanted to return to your home, tend your ancestors grave and till the land and you were caught in that area you are considered a VC and treated like one.  (Reference:  _War comes to Long An_).  A lot of innocent people were caught in the middle.  And furthermore a B52 bomb has a blast radius of up to several miles.  A bomb cannot distinguish between good and bad no matter how "smart" it is!  Neither can bullets sprayed into a group from 20 feet away.  

i am not saying that there were not any VC in that village, probably there were, but do 15 innocent people need to die so that you can kill 5 bad guys?  What percentage of bad guys would there have to be to make massacre okay?  20%? 50%? 1%?  When is rounding up people and firing on the en masse okay?  Was it okay in the Holocaust when the Nazis did it?  Was it okay at Nanking when the Japanese did it?  Was it okay at No-Gun-Ri in Korea when the Americans did it?  was it oka when the US dropped an atom bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki after the emperor surrendered?  Was it okay in Kampuchia when the Khmer Rouge did it?  Was it okay in Iraq when american troops do it?  Was it ok in Rwanda?  in Sarajevo?  in East Timor?  In indonesia?  Is it ok when you own people do it?  Is it ok when its the enemy?  is it it ok if a foreigner does it?  is it ok when they are slaves or indigenous people?  is it ok to do it when they're skin is brown?  is it ok to do it when their skin is white?

how about My Lai?  Americans killed somewhere between 150 to 300 innocent people.  Did hundreds of old people, women and children need to die b/c they were wearing black ao ba ba "pajamas" and look like a gook, might be a gook, and that's all the reason you need to kill them?  Did they have to rape the women first?  do VC "bitches" deserve to be raped?  Do pregnant women have to be stabbed in the belly with a bayonet b/c they might be VC?  Do they really have to put grenades in their vaginas and detonate them?  Did they have to kill the babies and toddlers?  Were those new lives too subversive to live?   Is an infant a VC?  Did they really have to dismember the bodies, keep body parts as trophies?  Where do you draw the line?    When is a man a hero for doing that and when is he a coward?  Americans.  300 years worth of experience killing poeple.  This is what Americans are capable of.  This is what human beings are capable of. (And if you think that this didn't happen, read your history.  Even the damn Time Life "Vietnam War Experience" talks about this!)  This is harsh language, but damnit war is not pretty!  you can either close your eyes and be ignorant or you can choose to know.  even when it hurts to know. and it does hurt so very much!  Dau long qua thanh toc bac.  The grief of it all... I get ulcers and grey hairs just thinking about it because the tears are choking me.

i don't care any more who was right and who was wrong.  All i care about is that people died.  Our people died.  They estimate between one and three MILLION Vietnamese people died during the war.  They will never know for sure b/c so many bodies were never found.  Who can count the ashes?  A B52 bomb, napalm, don't leave much of a human body left!  How many of us have lost family members, loved ones--ong ba co chu di cau anh chi em chau?  Who is not affected?  Can we honor our dead, nurse our wounds and go on living?  Is it ok that Kerry ordered them killed on the off chance that they might be VC?  Is it okay that he made a career out of it?  That he got a bronze star for it?  That he used it to give him a good reputation in congress and never said a word til he got caught!?  is an apology enough?  Would it make a difference if you knew the names of everyone who died, and their life stories?  what their childhood was like?  their favorite meal?  (Watch the documentary by an American war widow _Regret to inform_)  Don't we have anymore compassion left?

Why do we keep fighting the same war in our words?  hai muoi lam nam van tra thu sat...  Chung ta la con rong chau tien.  Tai sao phai ghet nhau? The same blood runs in our veins.

hoa binh,

LH

I got this article about My Lai off of askjeeves.com:

The My Lai Massacre

Dateline: 03/17/98  

Yesterday was the 30th anniversary of one of the darkest moments of our military history. This event had a very sobering effect on the American public, and our nation's psyche.  

Soldiers are trained to always follow orders, never question orders ("When I say jump, you say 'how high'"). But that belief is somewhat erroneous. The charge to the soldier is to obey any lawful order given.

But given the training involved, the often chaotic nature of battle and its subsequent need to follow authority to maintain survival....these ingredients can lead to a very blurred vision of what is right or wrong...one's instincts take over.

But sometimes, there are situations beyond question, when you've stepped over the line. My Lai was one of those situations.

Prelude to March 16, 1968

Charlie Company (Company C), 1st Battalion, 11th Infantry Brigade, Americal Division, had for the last few months, been in the Quang Ngai Province to "sanitize" the area. "Sanitizing" meant clearing out the area of VC, or Viet Cong. The VC had long cut into American troop strength by snipers, land mines and booby traps, and although these soldiers had lost comrades, they had not as yet faced the enemy. These unseen enemies, who struck the American troops and then blended in with regular Vietnamese peasants, had heightened fear and suspicion of all Vietnamese by the soldiers.

On the evening of March 15, Commanding officer of Charlie Company, Ernest Medina, briefed the entire company, working them up for a confrontation that "looked like a tough fight", and that they would finally get their chance to "get even with the VC". It was to be the major American action in Vietnam that day. The intelligence reports given claimed that one of the Viet Cong's top units was established in My Lai-4, a subhamlet of the village of Son My, about 6 miles NE of Quang Ngai City. The orders were to destroy the enemy battalion and the hamlet. By attacking at 7:30 AM, it was believed that the women and children would be on their way to market, leaving some 250-280 of the enemy troops.

The plan was, following an artillery barrage west of My Lai-4, Lt. Calley (commanding the 1st Platoon) would come down from the north, moving south, moving the enemy to the east. The 2nd Platoon, led by Lt. Brooks, would clear out the northern area. Lt. La Crosse's 3rd Platoon (accompanied by Medina), would stay at the airstrip for communications, and later "mop up the area". In addition, helicopter gunships would be circling the area. Medina, urging the men to be aggressive, ordered that everything in My Lai-4 was to be burned or destroyed.

March 16, 1968

Right on schedule, Calley's 25 men came off the helicopters firing into what they thought was an area infested with VC, which it was not (although quite possible that if any VC were there, the sound of the guns and view of the helicopters would have sent them scurrying). An old man was then spotted. He was shot dead. No weapon was retrieved from the old man.

About 20 minutes later, as the troops approached the hamlet some Vietnamese began to run across the open fields, and were shot down. It turned out to be women and children. Most of the villagers knew better than to run and get shot, and sat inside their huts, and waited in front as the soldiers came. The 1st Platoon began rounding up the villagers. The 2nd Platoon began killing as soon as they reached the western edge of the hamlet. Many soldiers yelled "Lai Day" ("come here"). When no one responded, grenades were thrown in. In some spots, huts were set on fire, and the villagers were bayoneted or shot when fleeing. Some were evacuated by grenades. Two young women were raped and then shot. Some 15-20 women and children, "praying and crying" around a temple, were shot in the head by troops walking by.

Those who were rounded up were taken primarily to two spots; one group of 20-50 were taken to a clearing; a second group of nearly 80 were taken to a drainage ditch. Just after 8 AM, Lt. Calley told the men guarding the first group, "You know what I want you to do with them." The men watched over the group until 10 minutes later when Calley returned and said, "Haven't you got rid of them yet? I want them dead. Waste them." From about 10-15 feet away, Calley began shooting, and ordered the men to do the same. Some began to and stopped, one fired away, crying as he did so, some continued as they were told. It took many clips of bullets to finish off the group, some of whom had even shown identification that they were not VC.

About 45 minutes later Calley came to the ditch where anywhere from 80-150 villagers were waiting. When some tried to crawl out of the ditch, once again Calley started shooting, and commanded his troops to do the same. One soldier reportedly refused, but the rest once again reluctantly followed orders. One source indicates that a 2-year-old avoided the bullets, crawled out of the ditch, and began to run to what used to be his home. Calley grabbed him, threw him back into the ditch, and shot him. Soon afterwards, he told his men to take a break. At some point someone in one of the helicopters overhead was heard over the radio, "From up here it looks like a blood bath. What the hell are you doing down there?"

Word was relayed back to Captain Medina at the air strip, that no VC were there, and as to what was going on at the time. Medina reportedly told the men to continue what they were doing. During all this, Medina called headquarters to tell them that 85 VC had been killed and 20 suspects captured (I'll expand on the statistics, body counts, and their relevance to the massacre in next week's column).

By 9 AM all of Charlie Company had reached My Lai-4. Instead of rounding up the villagers, the men just began firing at the people. Many fled to bunkers, and when they were full, hand grenades were tossed in (an act that was portrayed in The Deerhunter). The burning of huts, and shooting whoever came out continued.  

Warrant Officer Thompson

After refueling at 8:45-9:00, Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, piloting a helicopter doing reconnaissance (observation) in the area, noticed wounded villagers on the ground. He marked the location of the wounded and contacted another chopper to request aid for those wounded. At the same time, his crew chief , Glenn Andreotta (killed 3 weeks later), spotted the ditch where so many had been killed. Noting that some were still alive, Thompson landed between the ditch and Calley's defensive perimeter at 9:15-9:30. The response to Thompson's request for aid to the wounded was that the "only way to help them is to kill them." Thompson thought the respondent was joking, and took off. Andreotta observed a sergeant shooting into the ditch. When Thompson returned later, he saw all were dead.

He then saw a small boy bleeding. Once again, he marked the spot with smoke, and watched as someone shot the child. He them came across yet another bunker filled with children, and observed soldiers approaching the area. He landed again, placing himself between the bunker, and the oncoming soldiers. He told his gunner, Lawrence Colburn, that he was to set his weapon on the soldiers, and that if the troops fired while Thompson tried to get the civilians out of the bunker, Colburn was to fire on the American soldiers. He asked a Lieutenant (reportedly Brooks) to help them get the civilians out, and was told, "The only way to get them out is with a hand grenade". Soon two helicopters landed and helped evacuate the people.

Winding Down

Medina told Brooks (in the subhamlet of Binh Tay) at 9:30 to stop his 2nd Platoon from any more of the killing and raping going on (although the killing from the 2nd Platoon continued until 10:15). The remaining people of Binh Tay were then rounded up and moved out. Back in the My Lai-4 area, the heroics mentioned above by the helicopter crew were going on. Sometime past 10 AM, the only (ONLY) American casualty occurred. a PFC shot himself through the foot while clearing his .45 pistol (some reports claim it was on purpose to leave the madness).

Sometime between 10:30 and 10:45, Captain Medina received an order from Colonel Calhoun to stop the shooting. Medina assumed it was as a result of Thompson's having observed Medina's earlier shooting of a woman. Still, some of the injured were killed with a bullet to the head.

Soon before noon, the company moved out of the area. 3 weapons were found in the whole village. If VC had been there they would likely have found many more.  

No less than 175-200 Vietnamese were killed by Charlie Company. Another study put the figure at 347. Reports in newspapers on this anniversary put the total at 504. As mentioned above, the only American casualty was the soldier with the foot. It must be noted, that in addition to the heroics mentioned above, that some others did refuse to take part. But none later reported what happened to those in charge.

What was reported the next day in the papers, to headquarters, to the nation...was a crime in itself. As a matter of fact, it would take more than a year afterwards for the facts above to come out. The story, and trial involved with that is a story with its own absurdities.  

Last week's column (must reading for those viewing this column), covered the slaughter in the hamlet of My Lai-4, and on how a situation, given the ingredients, might occur that all of society, even those involved, would find abhorrent.

Without going into any of the story (read the column), American soldiers massacred anywhere from (depending on reports) 175 to 504 unarmed women, children & elderly men.  The following day in the New York Times, it was reported that, "While the two companies of United States soldiers moved in on the enemy force from opposite sides, heavy artillery barrages and armed     helicopters were called in to pound the North Vietnamese soldiers."

No civilian casualties were cited; no women raped were cited; no babies shot as they crawled for safety were cited; well....you get the picture.

Despite knowledge of what went on, neither Captain Medina up through Gen. Koster (division commander) took any steps despite both either participating in the mission, or learning of what went on during the mission, or knowledge afterwards. This, despite obvious discrepancies in the reports submitted.

128 Viet Cong soldiers were claimed to be killed in action, and that is what was sent to divisional and corps commanders. And yet only 3 weapons were captured. That should have raised eyebrows, and perhaps it did, but not enough to look into. Also, different reports were given as to civilian casualties; one was 10-12, another 12-14, another 20-28. All these numbers should have sent up a 'red' flag (pun intended).  

But this is symptomatic of all facets of society, particularly in areas where bureaucracy is involved. It's all about fudging the numbers to gain support in one form or another. We see it all the time; surveys; polls; budgets; insurance claims; body counts...deception by numbers in a system or public that does not know or care to know what the real numbers are.

Ridenour's Letter

But what is truly amazing is that none of this got out for over a year, and then only by someone from outside of the company that was told what happened by those in C (Charlie) Company.

In March 1969, an ex-serviceman named Ron Ridenhour wrote a letter concerning what had been told him about the massacre by 4 men of C Company. He sent copies to President Nixon; 23 members of Congress; The Secretaries of State, Army and Defense; and the present chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, William Westmoreland, who initiated an army investigation.

This investigation uncovered (much of which was found by William Wilson, a former Green Beret colonel) that a horrible atrocity of war occurred, and began indictments; the first of which was against Lt. William Calley. Calley was charged with the murder of at least 100 South Vietnamese civilians, but it was announced in such a low-key way, the story really didn't get pounced on by the media...

Seymour Hersh

...except for Seymour Hersh, a free-lance investigative journalist. In November 1969, he began a series of articles that uncovered the full story of the horror. The articles were labeled by many (in and out of government and the military) as being the worse of lying, exploitative journalism, and Hersh became a targeted symbol of the "leftist-media" trying to tear down the country. But it was these articles that awoke the public (and that in turn, naturally excited the rest of the media). And so, the army appointed a formal board of inquiry, headed by Lt. Gen. William Peers, to investigate (the House Armed Services Committee also conducted its own investigation).   Between November 1969 and March 1970, over 400 people were interviewed for the Peers Commission. Recommendations were made by the panel that 25 men be court-martialed (13 for war crimes, and 12 for dereliction of duty concerning the cover-up). Among these 25 were 15 officers, including the Division Commander, Maj. Gen. Koster, who was by this time Superintendent at West Point. An uproar was raised when the charges against senior officers were dropped before the court-martial (although Koster was reduced to Brigadier General, and his assistant, Brig. Gen. George Young was censured). The Brigade Commander, Col. Henderson was tried however, and was acquitted.

As for the 13 officers and enlisted men charged with war crimes, Captains Kotouc and Medina were found not guilty (Medina's acquittal was particularly shocking with all the verification of testimonies). Three sergeants were also found not guilty, and charges against all but one of the others were dismissed. One person was left to throw the book at...Lt. William Calley.

Calley's Conviction

Calley (who'd made it through officer's candidate school without being able to read a map, one of the things his platoon wondered about), was the only one found guilty of war crimes (many of the crimes he committed are covered in Part One). His conviction on March 29, 1971 (2 years to the day of Ridenhour's letter), brought him life imprisonment. Yet, his conviction began to win him support (and even sympathy) from many who were upset that the senior officers were not convicted, and many who felt Calley was being made the scapegoat (regardless, he did commit these unconscionable atrocities).  

President Nixon even got involved. He transferred Calley from Ft. Benning (Ga.) to house arrest, and promised to give a final review to Calley after the appeals were completed (this never happened, as Nixon became sidetracked with Watergate). The officer who convened the court-martial (the Ft. Benning commander) exercised his power to commute Calley's sentence to 20 years. The Secretary of the Army reduced it to 10 years. Due to time already served, Calley was paroled 6 months after entering federal prison. By the time his conviction was upheld on September 10, 1975, he had been out of prison for almost 1 1/2 years.

1998  

This year, as the 30th anniversary of the My Lai Massacre is remembered, commemorations took place at My Lai. Among those taking part were two men who were among the few heroes who saved lives on that day on March 16, 1968; Hugh Thompson, and Lawrence Colburn (their exploits were described last week). A few days previously, Thompson, Colburn, and Glenn Andreotta (killed a few weeks after My Lai) were awarded the Soldier's Medal military award for bravery.

What Did My Lai Mean?

As briefly mentioned last week, My Lai was a significant event in our nation's history; for its psyche as well as in military terms.   America has always prided itself on its virtue above the rest of the world; on its humanity; on its morals during war (it has...whether the history backed it up or not). And indeed, for the most part, America to that point had comparatively always staked itself to a higher moral ground ("Fighting with God on our side"). And, for the most part, the American people are worthy of that reputation (self-imposed or not). And the military could generally claim the same; most of those who served believed that those who committed these horrible acts should be thoroughly punished, particularly as these acts stain the reputations of the vast majority of moral fighting soldiers as well (it is not a contradiction in terms).

Not just the atrocities, but the lying about the Massacre, the lying of the numbers, the cover-ups, the word that this was not the only massacre...it was as if someone took the innocence and adherence to authority by the mainstream of this country and shook it by the shoulders, and in the process, woke it up.

America would never look at war or our military the same again.

Until next time...  

        David