Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Can we agree on a few basic things? Can we agree that unprovoked premeditated murder is a criminal act? Can we agree that there is no excuse for murdering toddlers in cold blood? Can we agree that we must punish capital crimes?

There is a dangerous argument that is emerging over the revelations of massacre at Haditha. Adding to the chorus coming from the right is an op-ed in today’s Washington Post by Frank Schaeffer. The op-ed is titled "What’s Lost in the Hue and Cry Over Haditha" and the "hue and cry" in the title should give you an indication of what the op-ed will argue.

Schaeffer trots out the "War is Hell" argument in excusing the Haditha massacre. He appeals to our respect for the veterans of World War II to argue that even in that war atrocities were committed. He cites a passage from Norman Lewis’ memoir "Naples ‘44" to illustrate that atrocities were committed in World War II:

"I saw an ugly sight: a British officer interrogating a civilian, and repeatedly hitting him about the head with the chair; treatment which the [civilian], his face a mask of blood, suffered with stoicism. At the end of the interrogation, which had not been considered successful, the officer called on a private and asked him in a pleasant, conversational sort of manner, ‘Would you like to take this man away, and shoot him?’ The private’s reply was to spit on his hands, and say, ‘I don’t mind if I do, sir.’

"I received confirmation . . . that American combat units were ordered by their officers to beat to death [those] who attempted to surrender to them. These men seem very naive and childlike, but some of them are beginning to question the ethics of this order.

"We liberated them from the Fascist Monster. And what is the prize? The rebirth of democracy. The glorious prospect of being able one day to choose their rulers from a list of powerful men, most of whose corruptions are generally known and accepted with weary resignation. The days of Mussolini must seem like a lost paradise compared to us."

No doubt that Bill O’Reilly will pick up on this excuse next week on the heels of his false accusation that Americans, and not the Germans, committed murder at Malmedy.

Schaeffer follows his retelling of Lewis’s account with the meat of the matter:

If Lewis’s account were the only surviving document from World War II, we might assume that allied nation-building ended in catastrophe. We would wonder why a morally outraged peace movement didn’t stop our troops from carrying out their failed and brutal campaigns.

Sixty years later and caught up in another war, we are confronted by the massacre in Haditha. And we are also caught up in the anguish of another generation of young men and women asked to kill but to keep killing within "civilized" bounds, to take insults, be fired upon by men hiding behind women and children, yet not respond in kind. [Emphasis added by me.]

That is really the crux of his argument. How can our troops be expected to not "respond in kind" when the enemy behaves so badly? Ok, I’ll bite on the moral argument. Especially since Schaeffer tugs at our heartstrings by recounting his son’s distress at being deployed in Afghanistan and challenges our moral standing to dare criticize actions on the battlefield:

It’s time for the critics of our military to also earn a little moral authority by volunteering themselves or encouraging their children to do so. Anything less is nothing more than arm’s-length moralizing. [Emphasis added by me.]

Well, sir, let me do some "arm’s-length moralizing" before I get to the real meat of the matter. No American is criticizing the American Military for the Haditha massacre, but rather, we are defending the American Military when we demand that these acts are not tolerated. If you want to condone or advocate the killing of innocent toddlers because you can’t take the heat of battle there are countless terrorist organizations that I recommend that you join. They will be glad to accept your application and agree with your rationalization. The American military is not the place for your kind of rationalization. There is a difference between a civilized and disciplined military and a terrorist organization. The American military does not target nor does it condone the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. The way to maintain discipline in an organized military is to quickly isolate and punish acts of barbarism.  For a final word on this, allow me to quote United States Army Major General William Caldwell from a recent press conference (as replayed on CNN’s Late Edition today):

The coalition does not and it will not tolerate any unethical or criminal behavior.

That is a rather clear and forceful statement from the United States Military. The American public should expect and demand no less from our military.

After the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the only person ever punished for murdering 504 innocent old men, women and children was Lt. William Calley. He received 3 and a half years of house arrest for his crimes. The American public was overwhelmingly sympathetic to Calley because after all it was "gooks" he had killed and anyone knows that the only good "gook" is a dead "gook". On the other hand, the hero of My Lai, Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thomson was vilified as a traitor because he dared save the lives of 10 women and babies from the murderous guns of Calley and his cohorts. In condoning the massacre at My Lai, the American public collectively bore the responsibility for those killings. It disgraced this nation and it disgraced the military.

The American people and the American Military have come a long way since My Lai. We have learned that premeditated murder cannot be excused. Excusing such crimes tarnished the entire military and the American people. Vigorously prosecuting these crimes does not tar the military, as Mr. Schaeffer suggests, but rather shows that the military will not tolerate these crimes. It protects the military from being overrun by this kind of barbarism. It sets a civilized and disciplined fighting force apart from terrorists and murderers. It honors our military to not tolerate criminal behavior. It recognizes that when bad things happen in war, civilized nations and militaries do not condone it but aggressively fight against it. After all, that is what the Geneva Conventions were adopted to recognize - that even in war, there is right and wrong, there is morality.

Haditha will not become My Lai as long as the American Military and the American people do not allow it to happen. These acts, whenever they occur, must be condemned. We need to appeal to the honor and discipline of our men and women in our military, not to baser instincts that Mr. Schaeffer appeals to when he condones "respond[ing] in kind". There is a reason why there is a "hue and a cry" over Haditha, Mr. Schaeffer. To remind you of the reasons, I recommend that you repeat after me: "There is no excuse for murdering babies." Here endeth the "arm’s length moralizing."

What is the appropriate punishment for murdering 504 innocent men, women and children? Death penalty? Life in prison? House arrest? If you answered house arrest than you win a cookie. Only one man received punishment for the slaughter of innocents at My Lai village in Vietnam on the morning of March 16, 1968. His punishment was 3 and a half years of house arrest. Many are now comparing the Haditha killings in Iraq with the massacre at My Lai. If the comparison holds then once again war criminals will escape unpunished. I for one hope that in the case of Haditha there will be justice where there was none in My Lai.

Now let me tell you the story of what happened one morning in a village in Vietnam…

On the evening of March 15, 1968, Captain Ernest Medina informed the men of Charlie Company that their orders were to destroy the village of My Lai the next morning. Medina said that there would be no women and children in the village at the time and they were likely to find the 48th Battalion of the Viet Cong in the village. Their mission would be to destroy the enemy, kill the livestock, poison the wells and set fire to My Lai.

On the morning of March 16, 1968 shortly before 8 a.m. helicopters carrying the men of Charlie Company landed just outside the village of My Lai. By 8 a.m. the first platoon of Charlie Company commanded by 24-year-old Lt. William Calley entered My Lai. The platoon began their search and destroy mission and found that the only people left in the village were old men, women and children. No one of fighting age was left in the village. The orgy of killing began. A man was stabbed in the back with a bayonet. Another man was thrown down a well and a grenade followed. Fifteen to twenty older women were gathered together and shot in the back of their heads. Eighty people were herded together in the village plaza and mowed down by Lt. Calley and a soldier named Paul Meadlo. Young children and babies were shot. Little girls’ breasts were fondled. An army photographer named Ronald Haeberle arrived in My Lai as the third platoon of Charlie Company moved in. He photographed and witnessed about 30 GIs kill about 100 civilians.

Lt. William Calley gathered about 80 civilians near a drainage ditch on the edge of the village. Calley ordered his platoon to throw the old men, women and children into the ditch. Most of his men refused but 3 or 4 obeyed. Calley ordered his men to shoot the civilians in the ditch. Some refused and some obeyed. Calley joined the soldiers in slaughtering the civilians in the ditch. One 2-year-old child tried to escape and ran toward the village. Calley grabbed the child, threw him into the ditch, and shot him.

Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thomson was piloting a helicopter above My Lai and saw the horror unfolding below. He landed his helicopter near the ditch and put himself between Calley and the civilians. He instructed his crew chief to gun down the Americans if they opened fire on the civilians again. Thomson managed to evacuate 10 civilians, including 5 children and a baby who was still clinging to her dead mother.

By noon the carnage was over.

Hugh Thomson filed a complaint alleging numerous war crimes at My Lai. The complaint went nowhere. The official Army version was that 128 enemy were killed and 20 civilians were inadvertently killed. However, word started to spread about the massacre from the GIs of Charlie Company. Some GIs of Charlie Company talked to a soldier named Ronald Ridenhour. Ridenhour decided to send a letter about the My Lai massacre to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and some members of Congress. Almost all of his letters were ignored. One recipient of the letter, Representative Morris Udall, urged a full investigation of Ridenhour’s allegations.

Eventually the Army charged 26 enlisted men and officers, including Lt. Calley and Captain Medina, with crimes related to the My Lai massacre. The charges against 25 enlisted men and officers would eventually be dropped. In March 1971 Lt. Calley was convicted by a military court martial of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Richard Nixon ordered Calley released from prison and confined to house arrest instead. On November 9, 1974 the Secretary of the Army paroled Calley and he was released from house arrest. In total, Lt. William Calley, the only man ever punished for the My Lai massacre, spent 3 and one half years under house arrest.

The oldest human being murdered at My Lai was 82 years old and the youngest was 1 year old. Lt. Calley spent a little under 3 days under house arrest for each civilian murdered at My Lai. President Nixon called the My Lai massacre "an isolated incident."

The public sentiment in the United States was overwhelmingly against the conviction of Lt. Calley. According to an opinion poll conducted for President Nixon on April 1, 1971, 79% said that the sentence of life imprisonment for Lt. Calley was "too harsh".

However, the My Lai massacre eventually caused the public to sour on the Vietnam War. Support for the war rapidly dissipated after the horrors of My Lai seeped into the American consciousness.

The lessons of My Lai are still relevant today. We learned at My Lai that soldiers are capable of and sometime do commit atrocities during war. We learned that even in the bleakest of times, and perhaps because of them, heroes emerge. We learned that war crimes sometimes go unpunished even when the evidence is overwhelming. We learned that political expediency can trump justice when a President wishes it.

After My Lai the expectation is not great that if the soldiers involved in the Haditha killings are found guilty that they will be given anything more than a slap on the wrist. There was plenty of public outrage and international outrage after My Lai, but the punishment did not come close to matching the magnitude of the crime. There is likely to be public outrage over Haditha, but public outrage is not enough.

This time justice must be served. For the victims, for the American people, and for the sake of humanity. Otherwise massacres like My Lai and Haditha will continue to occur and the guilty will continue to go unpunished. The lesson will continue to be that our ideals state that we do not do these things but our actions tolerate these atrocities with a wink and a nod.