Not lonesomepolecat here but I see his point. Looking at one side in a multi-sided issue is like saying I murdered a guy and making the claim that the fact that I shot him, even though it wasn’t necessary, because he was raping my sister is all beside the point. In a similar way, calling someone a “professional soldier” doesn’t bleed them of all emotional reactions. The context is relevant to any discussion – an even more so when you’re discussing war IMO. If you’re looking for a situation that will change your psychology in a hurry, I think you’ll find it in that situation.
(Had a whole long post on this done up but it just got eaten by the hamsters for some reason. I’ll just hit the highlights)
How can we even debate this question in a reasonable manner? Would everyone accept that the vast majority of ‘war crimes’ were investigated (on the US side at least), and the guilty punished? If so, then there is a GQ answer for how common US war crimes were (short answer: Not very common at all).
However, I can already hear the nay sayers: ‘But we all KNOW that the majority of US war crimes were never investigated, nor were the guilty by and large punished’. So…we are back to anecdote, supposition and pure WAG/speculation about the answer.
My own answer then (I wasn’t in Vietnam either…my dad was): How common were they? Not very common considering the number of US service personnel in theater as well as the extended period of time we were there (well over a decaded of combat operations)…but far from unknown.
What always amuses me in these discussions is the way both sides try to make excuses. To my mind the side that attempts to demonize the US forces in Vietnam while excusing the Communists (because you know WE are supposed to be all goodness and light while they are just savages and all) is just as bad as those that condemn the Communists while excusing the actions of the Americans (because THEY are savages and we were fighting for freedom).
It was a war, and really thats all the ‘excuse’ needed for either side…just a stupid bloody war like thousands of other stupid bloody conflicts that have plagued our species since we learned to bash each other over the head with clubs. Part of the reason that THIS particular conflict seems more ‘real’ to many people (especially from my generation) is that we got to see what was going on first hand every night in our living rooms (or at least we THOUGHT we could see and understand what was going on :dubious: ).
I don’t know how many of you remember, but I can remember seeing the fighting on the news every night…and seeing those messages telling how many US service men died this week on the local news. We saw the firefights in the comfort of our livingrooms, we heard the young soldiers saying they were scared or angry, we saw the reports of ‘war crimes’ and atrocities (from our side at least)…and so for the first time we had some idea what war was really like. Then we collectively projected, making THIS war ‘special’ and ‘different’ from all others (it was happening to our special generation after all…of COURSE it was special and different from all the other myriad wars fought throughout history :rolleyes: )…and we formed specific ‘good’ and ‘evil’ sides, blinding ourselves to the other side of the equation by demonizing the side (whichever one it was) we were opposed too. The US was ‘good’ (or ‘evil’), while the Communists were ‘evil’ (or ‘good’)…and it was that black and white for us.
Problem is that Vietnam was NOT special or different from all the other wars…we just had more information on it than previous wars. There were NOT more ‘war crimes’ on either side than there had ever been before. There were NOT more atrocities than in other conflicts. There was NOT a ‘good’ or ‘evil’ side, nor was there any black or white…all sides were (as in most other wars) simply shades of grey. And finally, we tend to forget that because the US is SUPPOSED to be (and IS IMHO) a great nation, a humane nation, a democracy and a ‘good’ nation, these were 18 year old kids who were fighting for their lives. And less we forget, the Vietnamese (on both sides) were ALSO made up of kids who were fighting for THEIR lives…and fighting for the dream of unification (both sides were fighting for this). Its enough to make even the hardest heart weep IMHO.
YMMV
-XT
Which of these are you saying?
-
American forces committed evils, they were just less evil than the Communists
-
American forces committed evils, but they were justified by the greater evils of the Communists?
-Joe
And I would agree with this statement in its entirety. But this approaches a tautology and it doesn’t help to forward the analysis.
I don’t believe that Communists or Nazis are excused for their atrocities because they are savages and its in their nature. Fundamentally, they are human beings, as we are, and they should be judged by the same standards.
But, when we do it, it matters more to me. Because an American soldier is my agent in the world. I empower him to use deadly force to act in my name. And when he has committed a crime, he has done it with the authority and power that I have given him. It matters more to me, because when it’s us we can take proper steps to prevent or reduce the probability of such crimes occurring and we can punish those who commit them.
And it’s important that we as Americans are fully aware of what is done in our name, because then we might pay more attention to decisions that our government makes in pursuing our interests around the world. If “liberating” and “democratizing” another nation by force of arms mean that we have to slaughter or torture or inconvenience X number of innocent people, then maybe we can live with that. But maybe, if that number is X+1, we’ll decide it’s not worth it. As citizens, we have to take the responsibility for these kinds of decisions ourselves, not leave them up to our agents in the field.
I don’t see anyone making an argument that “war crimes” should be left unpunished when found. I think most are responding to your earlier statement that ‘what the other side was doing doesn’t matter.’ I think it does if you want to make an hones assessment of the “crime.” So – you see people saying that the “crime” or any other wartime unethical acts, have to be understood within the context in which they took place. That’s all. You just can’t insist on looking at one side only - throwing the spotlight there and excluding all else – then damn the act in a vacuum. Folks making statements like ‘context doesn’t matter,’ when looking at and making judgments about a situation, aren’t being realistic IMO. I’d tend to think that war is one hell of a stresser – and I wouldn’t be so quick to judge outside of that context -
But isn’t the whole concept of ‘war crimes’ predicated on some acts being inexcusable, regardless of context?
Few people get particularly bent out of shape about scenarios like the occasional prisoner being roughed up for information, or killed because it’s not practical to spare someone to escort them to a secure location. It’s ugly and it’s nasty but shit happens in war, which is why starting them shouldn’t be done lightly.
Stretching that to “yeah, well, we massacred an entire village of several hundred unarmed civilians but hey, it’s rough being over here, cut us some slack” is taking moral relativism too far, in my opinion.
I never said they did. But so what? Just because we didn’t commit evils on the level of the Vietnamese doesn’t excuse our evil acts. The Vietnamese were not as evil as the Soviets or the North Koreans, but that doesn’t excuse their evil either.
What does our machine gunning of civilians (some children under 5) who are unarmed have to do with how evil the other side is? Israel manages to deal with terrorists who intentionally target civilians by trying not to target civilians themselves. So does the US in the war on terror. The other side doesn’t give us license to act the same way.
Of course Vietnam was different from other modern wars in that a big part of it was the guerilla tactics of the Viet Cong. There were no established “fronts” as has been common in modern warfare. This strongly contributed to intimidation tactics used by both sides. There were many U.S. attempts to establish loyalty in the villages and hamlets. I had personal involvment in several of these, including a “Pigs and chicken” program that provided small livestock to the rural people. One of my best friends was a Chief Corpsman who’s men made solo visits (to establish trust) to local villages and provided some basic medical care. The Viet Cong and the NVA would counter such efforts w/ killings, kidnappings and threats of more retaliation for those who cooperated and/or accepted help from U.S. forces. You can easily figure out who won most of the time. U.S. troops would often visit a village that they believed to be friendly, only to find themselves ambushed. It’s not difficult to understand that circumstances often deteriorated to the point where U.S. troops would be very leary and shoot first if they even suspected there might be some danger. If it did turn out to be a mistake it was quite natural to make an after action report that justified the situation. It’s not difficult to imagine a young trooper firing into a village because he heard an order to fire, or maybe just because everybody else was firing. Then they would find dead women, children, old people and feel regret, maybe then, or maybe later, after they’d had time to reflect. Was it justified? Did they find any evidence of a threat? Who gave the order to fire?
There are thousands of scenarios and it’s pretty damn hard to empathize until you’ve had the experience.
Because both sides were doing essentially the same thing? Because in war, men have done this or worse throughout history, the only difference being they used clubs or swords or single shot black powder weapons in the past? Because it seems to be the nature of man that when he goes to war, when he’s threatened with death, when he see’s his buddies killed before his eyes, when he is frightened, he lashes out, he becomes an animal?
The REAL question you should be asking is…the folks who did this, the Americans who machine gunned civilians, even children, were they punished? Were their crimes acknowledged? Was the information available or was it surpressed? Were they acting on their own or under orders?
Then turn it around. Were the VC and NVA who did the same thing, who tortured and killed civilians, even children, were THEY punished? Where their crimes acknowledged? Were they acting on their own or under orders?
When you can answer both of those questions truthfully and without dragging in your own preconceptions, then you have a better idea of what was going on. My own take on it is that by and large US atrocites WERE at least investigated. This doesn’t mean that every one was caught, nor does it mean that some weren’t convinently swept under the rug or hushed up. People being people and all. As for the NVA and VC war crimes, afaik they were mostly forgotten. I could be wrong about that of course and would be interested if anyone has cites that the North Vietnamese systematically investigated and punished either their own troops or the VC guerillas for war crimes. Additionally, I don’t seem to recall many OTHER people taking exception to what the NVA or VC was doing WRT war crimes…most of the focus was and still seems to be on what the US did that was bad. The standard arguement (attempted to be handwaved away in here) is that the NV’s, being communists and all, get a pass because they are savages, while the US gets put under a microscope, with every mistake and fuckup magnified to the maximum degree to show how evil and hypocritical we are.
Hell, just look at the title and assumption of the OP itself…‘how common were US war crimes in Vietnam’. Not ‘how common were war crimes in Vietnam’, not ‘were there really more war crimes in Vietnam than in any other conflict’, but the automatic knee jerk assumption that war crimes by the US were somehow ‘common’.
-XT
I think slaphead is correct here. I would only call something a “war crime” if it was inexcusable, regardless of what the other side was doing.
Shooting a village full of civilians, with no military advantage gained thereby, is a war crime. Bombing the same village and thereby shortening a just war and saving innocent lives (overall) is not a war crime, IMO.
But I think you can take into consideration what the enemy is doing when you are deciding what is justified under the doctrine of “the ends justifies the means”. Some means are mal in se, and cannot be employed, ever. Others are only wrong if they do not contribute to some just outcome. And the second class of actions can be justified more easily if the enemy is acting unjustly, because you have more evil acts to offset before you venture into “unjustified” territory.
Therefore, if the enemy is, say, locating his ammunition dumps in the basement of orphanages, it might be justified to bomb orphanages. If he isn’t, then it isn’t.
I think part of the confusion about “how common were US war crimes in Viet Nam” comes from classifying everything the US did in Viet Nam as a “war crime”, because the assumption is that the war itself was unjust. Whether you agree with this characterization or not, it is different (in my view) from what was done at My Lai. As well as from something that we could agree would be justified if the war itself was just.
Regards,
Shodan
Then you have this report:
“Among the newspaper’s findings:
Commanders knew about the platoon’s atrocities in 1967, and in some cases, encouraged the soldiers to continue the violence.
Two soldiers who tried to stop the atrocities were warned by their commanders to remain quiet before transferring to other units.
The Army investigated 30 war-crime allegations against Tiger Force between February, 1971, and June, 1975, finding a total of 18 soldiers committed crimes, including murder and assault. But no one was ever charged.
Six platoon soldiers suspected of war crimes - including an officer - were allowed to resign during the investigation, escaping military prosecution.
The findings of the investigation were sent to the offices of the secretary of the Army and the secretary of defense, records show, but no action was taken.
Top White House officials, including John Dean, former chief counsel to President Richard Nixon, repeatedly were sent reports on the progress of the investigation.”
Way to miss the point, dude.
For what it is worth, the big problem with the Tiger Force prosecutions was that the then President, a guy named Nixon, refused to make CIA agents available for the court-martials. The military courts had no subpoena power over non-uniform people and since the offenses had taken place in a supposedly sovereign foreign nation the ordinary federal courts had no jurisdiction. Thus, no witnesses, no trial. In an Army that was still smarting from the outbreak of indiscipline at MyLai and the inability to trace the responsibility beyond the company commander (because the battalion commander was dead), the failure of the Tiger Force prosecutions left a bitter taste.
I admitted that I know the vietnamese were more viscious than US soldiers. I don’t see what the problem is. I myself get upset when people get angry over US actions but ignore other crimes (ie, the people who protest the Iraq war and claim to be pro peace/anti war activists but who then ignore the wars in places like Nepal, Ethiopia, DRC or the Sudan which kill far more civilians). But I’m not talking about Vietnamese crimes. I expect the Vietnamese communists to commit war crimes and not be held accountable, even today Vietnam is one of the least politically free countries on earth according to freedom house. I don’t expect US military forces to do the same thing and as a US citizen I want to know what the military that represents me is doing.
I asked if they were common because I don’t know if they were common. Its why I said ‘how common…’. It could be extremely common, or it could be rare.
If you’d like to answer your own question about how common were crimes by both sides, and how often was each side held accountable then go ahead. I’m sure US crimes were rarer and were investigated more often than viet cong crimes. However I don’t think that that means we should just give a free pass to US war crimes because ours were less intense and less common. By that logic Vietnamese war crimes shouldn’t count because the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1979 and overthrew Pol Pot, who was committing far more war crimes. We should figure out ways to prevent these things from happening no matter what the circumstances. Good communications infrastructure (so it is harder to hide these things) and an interested international community willing to impose punishments and work out treaties seem like a good idea. There is no way either side would get away with what they did in vietnam nearly as easily in 2006 as they did in 1967.
Fuck you.
But if you were sure of that already, * why did you even ask the damn question in the first place??!? *
Because he wanted to know if they were extremely rare (for instance, just the My Lai incident) or if they were just kinda rare (like they didn’t happen every week).
What is so hard for you to understand?
Get the stick out of your ass. Not everything is a political statement.
Mind your manners.
LonesomePolecat:
[Moderator Hat ON]
LonesomePolecat, that is NOT appropriate for this forum and you know it. This is an official warning; cool it.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Witty.
So, are you disingenuous regarding your point or did you miss mine?
-Joe