My Lai Massacre Case Study

On September of 2015 on the CSU Sacramento Campus a disagreement between a student and professor took place. The disagreement started when the student, Chiitaanibah Johnson who is a member of the Navajo and Maidu tribes, was offended by a statement made to the class by the U.S. History professor. Johnson stated in an interview with Vincent Schilling (2015) of Indian Country Today Media Network “He was talking about Native America and he said the word genocide. He paused and said ‘I don't like to use that word because I think it is too strong for what happened’ and ‘genocide implies that it was on purpose and most native people were wiped out by European diseases.’”. Johnson then researched the topic, gathered evidence and presented the information

On March 16, 1968, a unit of the United States military was ordered to advance into a village called Son My in northern Vietnam. It was there that a mass execution of unarmed civilians took place. One may wonder how the United States could do something so seemingly inhumane after considering what the Nazis did only twenty years prior to the Vietnam War. However, in the context of a tense situation, there are particular factors that will affect one’s decision-making skills. Factors such as uncertainty, routinization, gradual escalation, and dehumanization of the victim are all possible components in affecting one’s obedience.

Spearheaded by Second Lieutenant William Calley and his platoon, US forces began attacking human and animal targets alike. Men, women and children were killed indiscriminately with firearms, grenades and bayonets. After the initial attack, backup forces came in and dealt with the “remaining resistance,” killing every living person they could find. Although most soldiers did not or refused to participate in the My Lai Massacre, they neither resisted nor attempt to prevent the killings.

Before we ask about My Lai Massacre, we need to know what is My Lai Massacre the My Lai massacre is My Lai massacre has indiscriminately shot unarmed civilians during the Vietnam War. The genocide was the duty of an officer of Charlie Company in the United States to lead a team in search of Vietnam. Their teams occupied a place called My Lai and slaughtered civilians under the direction of the high commander. Charlie Company entered South Vietnam in December 1967. In the first month there was no fighting, but in mid-March, five members of the team were killed by booby traps. Moreover, Vietnam’s 48th Battalion attacked US forces in the South Vietnam. The place of the incident occurred not far from where civilians live. This time, the US military was very angry and determined a massive counterattack the villages. Colonel Oran K Henderson orders Charlie Company to commit a massacre. The civilians who lived there were mainly woman, children and the elderly. American soldiers cruelly murdered and mocked them after receiving get permission. In the massacre more than 500 civilians were slaughtered and many women were raped and murdered. They attempted to conceal the events they had committed and led to an antisense sentiment that further divided the United States during the Vietnam War. However, some US military testimonies make their world known to their cruelty, including genocide and rape. In this paper, I will write down things about the behavior of the US

In the selected portion of the book Most Dangerous, the author, Steve Sheinkin uses an anecdote and specific vocabulary to illustrate his goals of giving background information, suggesting the significance of his point, and building a mood for the reader. The entirety of the selected text given is an anecdote itself, one about how American soldiers measured success in the war in Vietnam. The story Sheinkin uses provides key background information to the reader about how Americans measured their efforts by explaining, in detail, what a kill ratio is and how the strategy works, and describes what actions the American soldiers took in counting their dead bodies. This understanding is important to the reader because not only were the actions taken

Some individuals know to obey their superior, unless they want to be faced with consequences. However, there are occasions individuals choose to be disobedience because they believe it is the right thing to do for the certain situation that they are faced with. This could in an individual being terminated, dishonorably discharged, or suspended. Knowing the outcome of being insubordinate, individuals are usually obedient, even when they are in a situation that is morally wrong. Kelman and Hamilton, in their article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” examine how Lt. Calley's unquestioning obedience resulted in the massacre of many women and children. Theodore Dalrymple, in his article, “Just Do What The Pilot Tells You,” asserts that there is a balance between when one should be obedient to orders or one should not be. A movie, A Few Good Men, shows two U.S. Marines, Dawson and Downey, being charged for the murder of a fellow Marine at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and Lt. Daniel Kaffee represents them as their lawyer. Nicholas Leveillee, in his article, “The Role of Obedience in Society,” asserts that one needs to find a balance between obedience and insubordination, so individuals can maintain their individuality and a stable society. Adam Cohen, in his article, “Four Decades After Milgram, We’re Still Willing to Inflict Pain,” asserts that an

Calley and Charlie Company, we find out that the truth was worse than the stories. From the facts from the trial, we learn that there were anywhere from 343 - 504 fatalities and. that "[t]he crimes visited on the inhabitants of Son My Village included individual and group acts of murder, rape, sodomy, maiming, assault on noncombatants and the mistreatment and killing of detainees," ( Col. Wilson as qtd in Vietnam 562). You might think that what happened in My Lai was the worst of it all, but O'Brien says that, "Wreckage was the rule. Brutality was S.O.P." (566). Because the war was so confusing and because the soldiers couldn't tell who the enemy was, many felt that, "the army had no solution but to kill people, uniformed or not, old or young, male or female, proven Viet Cong or not," (Fussell 654). To me this is how some tried to justify killing but still some just couldn't make themselves feel as if they were justified.

Intel had determined that everyone in the village was either Vietcong or a sympathizer. More than 500 women, children, and old men were killed (American Experience). Regardless of the devastation caused in the small hamlet, the public most likely would never have known about the event if it weren’t for two men, Ron Ridenhour and Ron Haeberle.

During the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, there were American soldiers who murdered over 300 civilians in the My Lai village. But also there were some who refused to participate in those types of murderous activities. Once the My Lai massacre was brought to the attention of American citizens, they were questioning why did some soldiers commit atrocities and some of the other soldiers did not?

​Cowardice. Lack of education. Immorality. These are only a few traits to describe the soldiers that went along with the My Lai Massacre in 1968. The My Lai Massacre took place during the Vietnam War in the southern village of My Lai. American troops were told to bomb and kill the “armed” and “dangerous” people of this village because it was believed to be “stronghold for forces of the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam, or Viet Cong” (My Lai Massacre). These American troops then continued to follow orders although the villagers, mostly women, children and elders, were in fact not dangerous at all. Later, Hugh Thompson, an American soldier, was able to end this massacre. Since then, many people have studied and read up on the brutal actions of the American

A major turning point in the Vietnam War occurred in the small village of My Lai, Vietnam. The hamlet of My Lai was known for being fertile Viet Cong territory. A unit of the 11th Infantry Brigade, known as the Charlie Company, was sent to My Lai on a “search and destroy” mission. Soldiers of the Charlie Company were ordered to locate and eliminate communist fighters said to be in the area. On the morning of March 16, 1968 U.S. soldiers entered My Lai and, in what was said to be a matter of hours, killed hundreds of Vietnamese civilians in cold blood. Innocent men, women, and children were raped, tortured, and murdered. The initial targets of the Charlie Company’s mission, the 48th Viet Cong Battalion, were nowhere to be found. This horrific event became known as the My Lai massacre.

“When my troops were getting massacred and mauled by an enemy I couldn't see, I couldn't feel, I couldn't touch... nobody in the military system ever described them anything other than Communists.” (Simkin) These were Second Lieutenant William Calley’s words in response to the My Lai Massacre, but were an example of how most soldiers felt at the time. The My Lai Massacre was a killing of over 500 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians in March 16th, 1968. During this time, The Vietnam war was growing and US support towards the war was increasing.

     On March 16, 1968, in the Quang Ngai region of Vietnam, specifically My Lai, the United States military was involved in an appalling slaughter of approximately 500 Vietnamese civilians. There are numerous arguments as to why this incident even had the capacity to occur. Although some of the arguments seem valid, can one really make excuses for the slaughter of innocent people? The company that was responsible for the My Lai incident was the Charlie Company and throughout the company there were many different accounts of what happened that reprehensible day. Therefore there are a few contradictions about what had occurred, such as what the commanding officers exact instructions for the soldiers were. Even

Soldiers are trained to always follow orders, and to never question orders. But that belief is somewhat illogical. Soldier's are to obey any lawful order given. But the training involved, the often chaotic nature of battle, and the need to follow authority to maintain survival can lead to a very blurred vision of what is right or wrong. One's animalistic instincts may take over. Sometimes there are such situations when you've stepped over the line. Such as the horrendous act that took place on March 16, 1968 in the village of Son My.

To succeed politically within South Vietnam itself the United States had to ‘win the hearts and minds of public’. However the atrocities which had struck Vietnam, caused disarray with the public of Vietnam, one case where this is true was the Massacre at My Lai in March 1968; this was the killing of 300 villagers mainly women and children who were raped, murdered, and mutilated; this was carried out by American soldiers who thought the villagers were supposedly harbouring Vietcong. Lieutenant William Calley was charged with the crime but only served