Lt. William Calley: "Sorry about My-Lai"

[aelf]

There is something essential which you are missing: while My-Lai may have been indeed an act of insanity (no orders to do it and no rationale for it), the killing of civilians in war has been, and unfortunately is likely to remain, a standard tool of war. How can a state throw those responsible for My-Lay into prison, and at the same time ignore those who had been ordered to bomb, say, villages which were not paying taxes to the local corrupt puppet government (to use the other situation quoted above), on obviously flimsy excuses that they were harboring enemies? How could, for a more current example, NATO bomb civilian targets in Serbia to force the closure of that war, and then put in trial the pilots of the planes for the civilians killed? Or how could both the russians and the georgians fight their little petty recent war and achieve their goals without terrorizing civilians with bombings? How can the US keep Afghanistan unstable and its puppet government there without bombing also civilians, regardless of how they're all classified in press releases? "collateral damage", "unfortunate accidents"... it's all crap - it's part of the business of war, and avoiding it would mean, for the planners, failing the goals of war at the time.

So, should we judge the killing of some civilians, but not of others? Use an utilitarian criteria, perhaps: killing civilians is justified for the furthering of military goals, or as "collateral" results, but not gratuitously? But once you start using utilitarian criteria you've already renounced moral criteria! Morals and the practice of war don't really mix. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be tried, that it isn't useful precisely in keeping soldiers "sane" throughout a war (there were reasons for that contradiction of having chaplains in armies...) but it would be deeply hypocritical to be, judicially, harsh on soldiers who killed civilians as part of an activity where killing civilians is (let's be honest!) a regular "tool of the trade". So the practice is to, whenever a scandal breaks out, find some low-ranking scapegoats and punish them mildly, never venturing into the dangerous ground of what officer may have ordered what and what methods had been used in war, lest the whole war be questioned...

You're right. Until the capitalist system is replaced and war becomes history, we should forget about properly prosecuting war crimes.

It's so unfair to prosecute people who commit mass murders when their superiors get away, just like it's so unfair to prosecute criminals when their capitalist overlords get away. We should therefore just sit in a circle and hope for a better tomorrow.

Unless, you're saying that this is a perfectly political decision, in which case I agree. But then that's what I'm saying this is - a reprehensible political outcome where the concept of justice is not even being paid lip-service. Utterly disgusting, like I said, especially as it seems to find people willing to defend it who would probably foam at the mouth if the enemy was let off for similar deeds.

 

[innonimatu]

You're right. Until the capitalist system is replaced and war becomes history, we should forget about prosecuting war crimes.

It's so unfair to prosecute people who commit mass murders when their superiors get away, just like it's so unfair to prosecute criminals when their capitalist overlords get away. We should therefore just sit in a circle and hope for a better tomorrow.

Come on, you can do better that that... People are prosecuted for those crimes - sometimes, at least. What I've been trying to explain is that expecting harsher sentences is a pipe dream. Or even expect that more than the most infamous ones be investigated.

In the end it comes down to: can a war be waged without tolerating any such crimes? And the answer is usually no. That's how many wars eventually end - I'm recalling De Gaulle's courageous decision to put an end to the Algerian War because it couldn't be won except through terror. But he was smart enough not to put on trial those who had been, previously, implementing just such a strategy - because they were french soldiers acting on behalf of the french state! What crimes were committed, the french state was an accomplice, and you don't put states on trial. You should also not use soldiers as scapegoats. Well, not too much, except when journalists must be fed a few to quiet down...

Better that people be fully aware of the price of war, when they decide to support one, that they be deceived into thinking that war can be "clean" and all "misdeeds" punished.

 

[aelf]

Come on, you can do better that that... People are prosecuted for those crimes - sometimes, at least. What I've been trying to explain is that expecting harsher sentences is a pipe dream. Or even expect that more than the most infamous ones be investigated.

In the end it comes down to: can a war be waged without tolerating any such crimes? And the answer is usually no. That's how many wars eventually end - I'm recalling De Gaulle's courageous decision to put an end to the Algerian War because it couldn't be won except through terror. But he was smart enough not to put on trial those who had been, previously, implementing just such a strategy - because they were french soldiers acting on behalf of the french state! What crimes were committed, the french state was an accomplice, and you don't put states on trial. You should also not use soldiers as scapegoats. Well, not too much, except when journalists must be fed a few to quiet down...

Yes, I got it on a second reading.

However, I disagree that the soldiers who did these things cannot be held responsible. They can, specifically where they are not forced to commit the crimes but did them on their own initiative. Heck, some people might even say that you have a human responsibility to disobey orders to commit crimes.

 

[Flying Pig]

There is something essential which you are missing: while My-Lai may have been indeed an act of insanity (no orders to do it and no rationale for it), the killing of civilians in war has been, and unfortunately is likely to remain, a standard tool of war. How can a state throw those responsible for My-Lay into prison, and at the same time ignore those who had been ordered to bomb, say, villages which were not paying taxes to the local corrupt puppet government (to use the other situation quoted above), on obviously flimsy excuses that they were harboring enemies? How could, for a more current example, NATO bomb civilian targets in Serbia to force the closure of that war, and then put in trial the pilots of the planes for the civilians killed? Or how could both the russians and the georgians fight their little petty recent war and achieve their goals without terrorizing civilians with bombings? How can the US keep Afghanistan unstable and its puppet government there without bombing also civilians, regardless of how they're all classified in press releases? "collateral damage", "unfortunate accidents"... it's all crap - it's part of the business of war, and avoiding it would mean, for the planners, failing the goals of war at the time.

So, should we judge the killing of some civilians, but not of others? Use an utilitarian criteria, perhaps: killing civilians is justified for the furthering of military goals, or as "collateral" results, but not gratuitously? But once you start using utilitarian criteria you've already renounced moral criteria! Morals and the practice of war don't really mix. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be tried, that it isn't useful precisely in keeping soldiers "sane" throughout a war (there were reasons for that contradiction of having chaplains in armies...) but it would be deeply hypocritical to be, judicially, harsh on soldiers who killed civilians as part of an activity where killing civilians is (let's be honest!) a regular "tool of the trade". So the practice is to, whenever a scandal breaks out, find some low-ranking scapegoats and punish them mildly, never venturing into the dangerous ground of what officer may have ordered what and what methods had been used in war, lest the whole war be questioned...

Excuse me - it's not a standard tool at all. It happened in Vietnam because that was a completely new sort of war where the line between a civillian and an enemy turned very grey indeed, but is never used when it can be avoided. I'm also a little uneasy about your assessment of US goals in Afghanistan, but I'll let that slide.

Doesn't jibe with your claim that these people have serious combat-induced issues, which would certainly warrant much more psychological attention, nor any normal sense of justice for the victims. You even sing a different tune when the doer is on the enemy's side.

What I'm saying is that once they leave the war, they don't normally have anything wrong with them, and if they do they'll end up either hanging themselves or in jail within a few weeks.

I don't think I've ever 'sung a different tune' in a comparable situation. If I have, please point it out.a

What you need to understand is that yes, soldiers commit crimes. Yes, soldiers sometimes murder civillians. However, the minute I heard about this one event, I realised that the man in question had, to use your term, combat induced stress.

 

[aelf]

What I'm saying is that once they leave the war, they don't normally have anything wrong with them, and if they do they'll end up either hanging themselves or in jail within a few weeks.

And they still need to answer for their deeds. Period. That's justice, and that's deterrence. Rehabilitation can certainly be done while justice is served. I'm not advocating putting them in dungeons and torturing them.

I don't think I've ever 'sung a different tune' in a comparable situation. If I have, please point it out.

Here you go:

In one of Germany's last Nazi war crimes trials the court found Josef Scheungraber ordered his troops to shoot dead three men and a 74-year-old woman in the street before driving another 11 men, aged between 15 and 66, into a barn and blowing it up.

Just one survived – 15-year-old Gino Massetti, though he suffered terrible injuries. Some 65 years later, Mr Massetti gave evidence at Scheungraber's trial in Munich.

The massacre of the civilians, in the Tuscan village of Falzano di Cortona, was revenge for an attack by Italian partisans that left two German soldiers dead.

See, the way the Nazis did things was very clear-headed. I know the whole 'just following orders' thing, but there does come a point when you have to say that you can't do what you're being asked to.

So, anything on why the German officer is more 'clear-headed' than this guy such that the former deserves a much greater punishment for a smaller crime? So far all I see are double standards.

What you need to understand is that yes, soldiers commit crimes. Yes, soldiers sometimes murder civillians. However, the minute I heard about this one event, I realised that the man in question had, to use your term, combat induced stress.

Once again, I'd like to hear your plan. How are you going to win the battle for hearts and minds when civilians know that soldiers from 'civilized countries' can commit crimes and hardly get punished later because they claim combat stress?

And if a gang member kills a few hundred innocent people during a gang war, can he claim combat stress too?

 

[Mise]

Good, but it only counts if they were ordered to do so, in which case they aren't really acting normally since they are under massive pressure to do so

The Stanford Prison experiment shows that when a bunch of normal people are given absolute control over another bunch of normal people, the group in control will often exact incredibly inhumane punishments on the group under their control, often involving sadistic and horrendously cruel acts. Abu Ghraib has been cited as an example of this; however, I don't know enough about My-Lai, or about psychology in general, to comment any further.

I'd be very interested to hear comments from more knowledgeable posters, if there's anyone out there?

 

[Flying Pig]

And they still need to answer for their deeds. Period. That's justice, and that's deterrence. Rehabilitation can certainly be done while justice is served. I'm not advocating putting them in dungeons and torturing them.

What I've been constantly saying is there's no need for re-habilitation.

So, anything on why the German officer is more 'clear-headed' than this guy such that the former deserves a much greater punishment for a smaller crime? So far all I see are double standards.

I've already said - what this guy did was consistent with what I've seen with (for want of a better word) shell-shock, whereas what the Nazis did could only have been deliberate. The degree to which the squaddies are to be punished is up for debate.

Once again, I'd like to hear your plan. How are you going to win the battle for hearts and minds when civilians know that soldiers from 'civilized countries' can commit crimes and hardly get punished later because they claim combat stress?

Simple - if they weren't shell-shocked, sling them in jail. It's not hard to tell

And if a gang member kills a few hundred innocent people during a gang war, can he claim combat stress too?

Technically I suppose, but he didn't have 'good motives'. This guy only wanted to make a good life for himself and serve his country, and he risked his life for that. I think that deserves a little respect.

The Stanford Prison experiment shows that when a bunch of normal people are given absolute control over another bunch of normal people, the group in control will often exact incredibly inhumane punishments on the group under their control, often involving sadistic and horrendously cruel acts. Abu Ghraib has been cited as an example of this; however, I don't know enough about My-Lai, or about psychology in general, to comment any further

Soldiers aren't normal people - there's discipline and there's superiors breathing down your neck. That's why they have all the left-right-left-right stuff

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

A better experiment to reference in connection with My Lai is the Milgram Experiment.

 

[Flying Pig]

Mentioned, and I don't think it's a good analogy.

 

[REDY]

I was going to leave the argument, but have to come back in. You can't tell how a given person will react because for almost everyone it's a completely new experience. It would be like being allowed to drive after drinking because you said that you wouldn't get drunk. What Mise and Jessiecat are saying is right, but equally in a professional army the unspoken rule is that if you give an order and it happens as you say it, then you take responsiblity for what happens, if not the guy who changed it does. That goes for who gets the medal as well as who gets the blame

I should ensure you that I understand your points. I generally accept that stress for soldiers should be worse than anything what civilians experienced.
On the other hand, its still job which they have chosen and risks are reflected in pay. Military and psychology experts should make excuse points part, but I am quite sure that same crimes commited under comparable stress by others would be treated much different. Every case should be carefully and individually investigated to make clear that such behaviour isnt tolerated.
For me personally is lining up, raping and photographing women and children before shooting them quite unsupportive for momental mental disorder, but I guess that psychiatrists and soldiers know best.

 

[Flying Pig]

Actually it's bang in line with it. I believe (as of this thread) that almost nobody outside the military has any idea about this sort of thing

I'm not sure if they did, but I think the government or the army should have made a public apology, and probably the soldiers too. That's to show that it's not tolerated, while not smashing the people involved

 

[Formaldehyde]

Actually it's bang in line with it. I believe (as of this thread) that almost nobody outside the military has any idea about this sort of thing

How convenient for all those unprosecuted war criminals out there. We simply can't understand why they should all be exempt from the law.

I'm not sure if they did, but I think the government or the army should have made a public apology, and probably the soldiers too. That's to show that it's not tolerated, while not smashing the people involved

Oh yeah. That's almost as good as justice being served. I bet if al-Megrahi simply apologized for being 'mad' at the time of the Lockerbie bombing that all would be forgiven.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't believe in retribution. That's the mark of a barbaric people - hurting someone because it makes them feel good.

How convenient for all those unprosecuted war criminals out there.

Anyone who sees this sort of thing happening will know what's going on straight away - anyone who pleads shell-shock falsely will be caught

 

[Formaldehyde]

Right... As you have rationalized about Calley without ever meeting him before, or even being all that familiar with what actually happened...

 

[Flying Pig]

Grim experience. Just hearing about what happened I can see what happened. I've spent longer in a jungle with combat units than almost anyone from Europe or America

 

[Formaldehyde]

So we will just leave it up to you to determine who is a real war criminal and who is "mad" from now on. Because you can tell from afar what actually transpired without even knowing the particulars of the case. Too bad the Nazis and the Japanese didn't have you going to bat for them at the end of WWII...

I am beginning to understand why Patton didn't have any tolerance for this sort of nonsense. It seems to usually be just a matter of convenient excuses to be derelict in your duty and to commit war crimes whenever you see fit.

 

[Flying Pig]

If it is an excuse, then I'm all for punishment, and very severe punishment. However, I also don't believe in punishing someone where punishing them serves no purpose.

Patton was a soldier of the old school in the days where shell-shock was a common excuse to get out of duty. Now, nobody will admit to it

 

[innonimatu]

Excuse me - it's not a standard tool at all. It happened in Vietnam because that was a completely new sort of war where the line between a civillian and an enemy turned very grey indeed, but is never used when it can be avoided. I'm also a little uneasy about your assessment of US goals in Afghanistan, but I'll let that slide.

I must disagree. Attacking civilians may be avoided when a country is just defending against aggression, but it certainly never is avoided when one is attacking. The purpose of war is to gain something, to shift some power balance, though violence. This something which is to be gained (territory, or political power, or wealth, or other concessions) always belongs to civilians. In order to get it those civilians must be targeted with said violence. The threat may even be enough, and the actual fighting limited to destroying the army of the attacked country, leading its civilians to surrender whatever the attacker demands, but the civilians are the target. Defeating an enemy army achieves nothing by itself, as the political goals of an attack (except for a possible "preemptive strike", but I can recall no modern real case of one) are always about controlling civilians. And in modern warfare it's quite easy to designate civilians as valid targets for bombing: power stations, factories, communications hubs, TV stations, bridges, etc, all are "valid targets"...

Fortunately we've lived through several decades with few open wars of aggression, and now it's an embarrassment to even admit the above about the real nature of war. That's a good thing, I think. But even so wars are still be started with the excuse that they are meant to "liberate" the civilians within the enemy country, so it's no antidote to aggressive war - an excuse can always be found. I won't even present Iraq as an example of that: the bombing of Serbia in 1999 is a better one. Political change in Serbia was demanded, and the bombs succeeded at persuading the serbian civilians to comply... I still think that occupying Kosovo as a protectorate was not the primary goal, as no one really knew what to do with that hot potato later. And the "protect the albanians" wish was so strong that NATO bombed even them also, and the "genocide" of albanians was orchestrated at Berlin and Washington for media consumption, not at Belgrade.

About Afghanistan, I suggest the following test to evaluate whether a government is a puppet government or not: can it survive without direct foreign military support? If it can, NATO's presence there has no justification. If it can't, then it's a puppet government. Note that I'm not evaluating whether it is better or worse than any alternative, only claiming a fact: it is a puppet government.

 

[Flying Pig]

I must disagree. Attacking civilians may be avoided when a country is just defending against aggression, but it certainly never is avoided when one is attacking. The purpose of war is to gain something, to shift some power balance, though violence. This something which is to be gained (territory, or political power, or wealth, or other concessions) always belongs to civilians. In order to get it those civilians must be targeted with said violence. The threat may even be enough, and the actual fighting limited to destroying the army of the attacked country, leading its civilians to surrender whatever the attacker demands, but the civilians are the target. Defeating an enemy army achieves nothing by itself, as the political goals of an attack (except for a possible "preemptive strike", but I can recall no modern real case of one) are always about controlling civilians. And in modern warfare it's quite easy to designate civilians as valid targets for bombing: power stations, factories, communications hubs, TV stations, bridges, etc, all are "valid targets"...

Fortunately we've lived through several decades with few open wars of aggression, and now it's an embarrassment to even admit the above about the real nature of war. That's a good thing, I think. But even so wars are still be started with the excuse that they are meant to "liberate" the civilians within the enemy country, so it's no antidote to aggressive war - an excuse can always be found. I won't even present Iraq as an example of that: the bombing of Serbia in 1999 is a better one. Political change in Serbia was demanded, and the bombs succeeded at persuading the serbian civilians to comply... I still think that occupying Kosovo as a protectorate was not the primary goal, as no one really knew what to do with that hot potato later. And the "protect the albanians" wish was so strong that NATO bombed even them also, and the "genocide" of albanians was orchestrated at Berlin and Washington for media consumption, not at Belgrade.

About Afghanistan, I suggest the following test to evaluate whether a government is a puppet government or not: can it survive without direct foreign military support? If it can, NATO's presence there has no justification. If it can't, then it's a puppet government. Note that I'm not evaluating whether it not it is better or worse than any alternative, only claiming a fact: it is a puppet government.

Actually, you can have a war of aggression without attacking civillians at all. In fact, the perfect invasion would be to defeat or render useless the entire enemy armed forces in one engagement or manoever, then move onto the capital and force the government to hand over sovereignty to the government of the invader, and face no civillian insurgency.

Secondly, a building with civillians in it is never a primary target, and even if it is made a target the rule when going in, Iranian Embassy style, is to avoid hurting anyone without a weapon. While the material will be destroyed, no soldier will ever point any sort of weapon at anyone who is unarmed and not dangerous

Thirdly, I contest your definition of a puppet government - it's only a puppet government when a third party exerts total influence over it. If the US chooses not to intervene in Iraqi politics, then it's not a puppet government

 

[innonimatu]

Actually, you can have a war of aggression without attacking civillians at all. In fact, the perfect invasion would be to defeat or render useless the entire enemy armed forces in one engagement or manoever, then move onto the capital and force the government to hand over sovereignty to the government of the invader, and face no civillian insurgency.

Indeed. But you're still threatening the civilians - that's why you first had to defeated their army, to leave them defenseless. And a threat only works if you can carry it out. What do you do if the civilians decide to resist the will of the occupier? Withdraw in good order? I think not! What modern war has followed such an ideal pattern?

Secondly, a building with civillians in it is never a primary target, and even if it is made a target the rule when going in, Iranian Embassy style, is to avoid hurting anyone without a weapon. While the material will be destroyed, no soldier will ever point any sort of weapon at anyone who is unarmed and not dangerous

I wonder how NATO managed to kill between around 500 and 1000 serbs back in 1999, then? Hit TV stations, etc...ah, and the chinese embassy too! Right, it wasn't by soldiers pointing weapons, it was by pilots dropping bombs. Somehow that didn't make those civilians any less dead than a bullet would.

Thirdly, I contest your definition of a puppet government - it's only a puppet government when a third party exerts total influence over it. If the US chooses not to intervene in Iraqi politics, then it's not a puppet government

If they chose not to intervene, they'd need zero troops there. Non-intervention means exactly that, not intervening at all. The mere presence of soldiers there is an intervention, and no one can mis the implicit threat.