My Lai Vietnam

"Calley's action put a black mark on the dedicated and honorable service of many of the members of the US Americal Division in US Military History; since Vietnam they were dubbed unjustifiably; 'The Baby Killers. 'Most of the Americal Division served their nation honorably, and were just common soldiers without any links to murder." - editor

On March 16, 1968 the angry and frustrated men of Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division entered the village of My Lai. "This is what you've been waiting for -- search and destroy -- and you've got it," said their superior officers. A short time later the killing began. When news of the atrocities surfaced, it sent shockwaves through the US political establishment, the military's chain of command, and an already divided American public.

My Lai lay in the South Vietnamese district of Son My, a heavily mined area of Vietcong entrenchment. The whole province surrounding My Lai had been declared a 'Free Fire Zone' and pilots returning from combat raids were authorized to drop un-spent ordinance on targets of opportunity. Numerous members of Charlie Company had been maimed or killed in the area during the preceding weeks by local inhabitants. The agitated troops, under the command of Lt. William Calley, entered the village poised for engagement with the elusive Vietcong.

As the "search and destroy" mission unfolded it soon degenerated into the massacre of over 300 apparently unarmed civilians including women, children, and the elderly. Calley ordered his men to enter the village firing, though there had been no report of opposing fire.

According to eyewitness reports offered after the event, several old men were bayoneted, praying women and children were shot in the back of the head, and at least one girl was raped, and then killed. For his part, Calley was said to have rounded up a group of the villagers, ordered them into a ditch, and mowed them down in a fury of machine gun fire.

Word of the massacre did not reach the American public until November of 1969, when journalist Seymour Hersh published a story detailing his conversations with ex-GI and Vietnam veteran, Ron Ridenhour. Ridenhour learned of the events at My Lai from members of Charlie Company who had been there. Before speaking with Hersh, he had appealed to Congress, the White House, and the Pentagon to investigate the matter. The military investigation resulted in Calley's being charged with murder in September 1969 -- a full two months before the Hersh story hit the streets.

A military commission investigating the My Lai massacre found widespread failures of leadership, discipline, and morale among the Army's fighting units. As the war progressed, many "career" soldiers had either been rotated out or retired. Many more had died. In their place were scores of draftees whose fitness for leadership in the field of battle was questionable at best.

Military officials blamed inequities in the draft policy for the often slim talent pool from which they were forced to choose leaders. Many maintained that if the educated middle class ("the Harvards," as they were called) had joined in the fight, a man of Lt. William Calley's emotional and intellectual stature would never have been issuing orders.

Calley was an unemployed college dropout. He had managed to graduate from Officer's Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia, in 1967. At his trial, Calley testified that he was ordered by Captain Ernest Medina to kill everyone in the village of My Lai. Still, there was only enough photographic and recorded evidence to convict Calley, alone, of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison, but was released in 1974, following many appeals.

The first MACV directive dealing specifically with war crimes was Directive 20-4, dated 20 April 1965. Its purpose was to designate the agencies responsible for conducting investigations of alleged or apparent violations of the Geneva Conventions inflicted by hostile forces upon U.S. military or civilian personnel assigned to Vietnam.

The directive defined war crimes as violations of the law of war, and stated that "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions, such as willful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment of persons protected by the conventions constituted war crimes. The directive also addressed itself to "prohibited acts" under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, defining them as those acts which "would be war crimes but for the fact the existing conflict is not yet deemed to be international in character." In retrospect, this early directive is interesting in two respects. The directive concerned itself only with those violations inflicted by hostile forces upon U.S. citizens, and it stated that the fighting in Vietnam was not yet an armed international conflict in the legal sense.

The reasons for drafting the directive in this manner were immediate and practical. Prior to the introduction of ground combat units in Vietnam in March 1965, U.S. troops in Vietnam served in an advisory capacity; U.S. units had not planned or executed combat operations or taken prisoners, and there were no indications that U.S. advisers were violating the Geneva Conventions. To the contrary, the only atrocities known to the U.S. command at the time were those committed against U.S. advisers by the Communists.

MACV Directive 204 was promulgated to ensure appropriate investigation of such atrocities. (See Appendix F.) As to the international nature of the conflict, the principal enemy of the Republic of Vietnam at the time was the Viet Cong, whose members the republic regarded as domestic criminals.

MACV Directive 20-4 was updated on 25 March 1966 with several significant changes. The scope of the directive was broadened to include war crimes committed by U.S. personnel as well as those against U.S. personnel. In consonance with the official U.S. position that the struggle in Vietnam by then constituted an armed international conflict, no mention was made of a lesser category of "prohibited acts," as defined in the earlier directive, and eighteen examples of acts which constituted war crimes were given.

The directive clearly stated that the willful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment of, or willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to the body or health of persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who had laid down their arms or who were not combatants because of sickness, wounds, or any other cause, was a war crime. Other acts specified as war crimes were maltreatment of dead bodies, firing on localities which were undefended and without military significance, pillage or purposeless destruction, killing without trial of spies or other persons who committed hostile acts, and compelling prisoners of war or civilians to perform labor prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

The directive went on to fix responsibility on every member of the U.S. armed forces for reporting incidents which could constitute war crimes. It stated that "It is the responsibility of all military personnel having knowledge or receiving a report of an incident or of an act thought to be a war crime to make such incident known to his commanding officer as soon as practicable. Personnel performing investigative, intelligence, police, photographic, grave registration or medical functions, as well as those in contact with the enemy will, in the normal course of their duties, make every effort to detect the commission of war crimes and will report the essential facts to their commanding officer."

As was the-practice for all MACV directives, MACV Directive 20-4 was updated periodically. It was also supplemented by a number of other directives pertaining to the Geneva Conventions, war crimes, and prisoners of war. MACV Directive 27-5, Legal Services: War Crimes, and Other Prohibited Acts, dated 2 November 1967, listed acts which constituted war crimes and stated, "Commission of any act, enumerated in paragraph 4, above, or constituting a war crime is prohibited. Violation of this directive will be punishable in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military justice." Other regulations pertinent to war crimes and prisoners of war were MACV Directive 190-3, Military Police: Enemy Prisoners of War, 6 April 1967; MACV Directive 20-5, Inspections and Investigations: Prisoners of War-Determination of Eligibility, 17 May 1966; MACV Directive 381-46, Military Intelligence: Combined Screening of Detainees, 27 December 1967; MACV Directive 335-1, Reports of Serious Crimes or Other Incidents, 5 January 1966; and Geneva Conventions Checksheet sent to all judge advocates in Vietnam. (See Appendix G.)

Throughout 1965, 1966, and 1967 the most grievous breaches of the Geneva Conventions continued to be those committed by the Communists, and there were several cases where U.S. troops were murdered and their bodies mutilated by the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese. The Viet Cong policy of kidnapping civilians, assassinating public officials, and terrorizing entire populations continued. Communist tactics against the Montagnards, indigenous mountain tribes, were particularly vicious.

On the American side, the sudden massive U.S. troop buildup in Vietnam that began in 1965 created many problems for the U.S. command, and incidents of war crimes by U.S. troops began to be reported. For example, during the period between 1 January 1965 and 31 August 1973, there were 241 cases (excluding My Lai) which involved allegations of war crimes against United States Army troops.

Sixteen cases involving thirty men resulted in acquittal or dismissal after arraignment. Twenty cases involv-ing thirty-one Army servicemen resulted in conviction. By the time the U.S. troop buildup was in full swing, various MACV directives contained a sufficient body of law clearly to define, prohibit, and provide for the investigation of war crimes. The constant rotation of troops created a continual need to get the information to the troops.

Long before U.S. troop units were engaged in combat in Vietnam, the Army had included in its training programs material designed to inculcate in the troops a knowledge of their rights and obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Army Regulation 350-216, dated 19 December 1965, placed upon the Commanding General, Continental Army Command, the responsibility of incorporating within appropriate training programs periods of instruction designed to insure that all members of the Army were familiar with the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

The soldier's first introduction to the Geneva Conventions was during basic training, where he received two hours of formal instruction, followed by a test, the results of which were noted on his record. During advanced individual training, instruction in the Geneva Conventions was integrated with other subjects and principles were applied during field exercises. Annex B of Continental Army Command Regulation 350-11 dated 15 June 1965, required commanders to take continuing action to incorporate instruction on the Geneva Conventions in their training programs. Training programs pertaining to the Geneva Conventions were the subject of a comprehensive review, and several steps were taken to increase and improve instruction by the use of training films and combined judge advocate-combat arms officer training teams.

In Vietnam, Geneva Conventions training was intensified and became more formalized as troop strength increased. As early as August 1965, the Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, directed that the educational program for all U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam include the issuance of a three-by-five-inch card containing the basic requirements of the Geneva Conventions pertaining to the treatment of prisoners of war. By October 1965 cards had been prepared in English for U.S. personnel and in Vietnamese for Vietnamese armed forces personnel. U.S. units were instructed in the basic rules of handling prisoners and MACV judge advocate personnel briefed Vietnamese military legal personnel on the application of the conventions.

The Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, continuously and emphatically stressed the importance of all troops acting in accordance with the laws of war. In November 1965, he discussed with the chief of staff of the Vietnamese joint General Staff the importance of adhering to the Geneva Conventions pertaining to the treatment of prisoners of war. The commander conferred periodically with Vietnamese officials on this subject and on the importance of proper deportment by all troops in general. The results of this concern became noticeable in several areas, one noteworthy example being the promulgation in March 1967 by the Vietnamese government of a National Decree stating the provisions of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. In August 1966 the Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, personally wrote separate letters to all of his major commanders on this same theme, stating in part, "Active command interest in this program, in coordination with Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces authorities, which assures that prisoners of war and combat captives are properly processed and handled in accordance with International Law is vital."

This theme was repeated over and over again. A MACV command information bulletin, titled Application of the Geneva Prisoner of War Conventions in Vietnam, dated October 1966, instructed the U.S. troops that the Geneva Prisoner of War Conventions applied to Vietnam even though there was no formal declaration of war by the United States. Moreover, the United States was applying not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, which were designed to protect the individual who could no longer protect himself.

Prisoner of war treatment was to be extended to all Viet Cong and to all members of regular North Vietnamese units, whether captured in combat or not, as long as they were not criminals, spies, saboteurs, or terrorists. Criminals, spies, saboteurs, and terrorists were to be given humane treatment and turned over to the Vietnamese government for trial.

The bulletin explained the steps to be taken immediately upon capture of enemy personnel, and stressed that prisoners must be protected from torture, humiliation, degrading treatment, reprisals, or any act of violence. The categories of detained persons (innocent civilians, prisoners of war, returnees, and civil defendants) were listed, with a reference to the MACV directive which outlined processing procedures for each type of detainee.

The bulletin went on to explain the importance of observing humanitarian principles in waging war, giving specific reasons why it was in the interest of the U.S. for American troops to treat prisoners humanely. In conclusion, the bulletin urged the troops to follow the rules on the card "The Enemy in Your Hands." In addition, through U.S. judge advocate resources in Vietnam the MACV Staff judge Advocate's office monitored the troop education program and disciplinary aspects of Geneva Conventions violations.

These efforts on the part of the U.S. command were commended by the Red Cross in a letter of 5 January 1968 to W. Averell Harriman, U.S. Ambassador at Large. Samuel A. Gonard, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, wrote: "We are convinced that in the context of the war in Vietnam the U.S. Forces are devoting a major effort to the spread of knowledge of the Geneva Conventions."

For the most part, war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Vietnam fell into two principal categories: willful murder or assault of noncombatants; and mutilation and maltreatment of dead bodies. Serious incidents involving assault, rape, and murder that were not directly connected with military operations in the field were not characterized as war crimes but were reported through military police channels as violations of the Uniform Code of Military justice.

Acts constituting war crimes were also offenses against the Uniform Code of Military justice, and as such were investigated by agents of the Criminal Investigation Division. Pertinent MACV directives required a concurrent investigation of war crimes by an investigating officer who was concerned not only with the details of the crime, such as the persons involved and where, when, and what occurred, but also with the broader question of how and why the incident took place. The scope of this investigation included an examination of the established rules of engagement and command and control procedures that were in effect at the time, and how these procedures were implemented. The question to be determined was whether there was any failure of command responsibility.

When an investigation was completed, the report was delivered to the general court-martial convening authority, who had appointed the investigating officer. The appointing authority reviewed the report and approved or disapproved it. If approved, the report of the investigation with the appointing authority's indorsement was forwarded through channels to the Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. At MACV headquarters it was circulated to appropriate staff offices, including the Staff judge Advocate, for review. The report could be returned for further action or approved by the MACV commander or chief of staff. After final review, a war crimes investigation report concerning any person was forwarded to The judge Advocate General, Department of the Army.

The Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, had considered establishing special war crimes teams and having the Army maintain centralized files on war crimes for all services, but this was not done because the laws prohibiting war crimes and the administrative and judicial machinery for investigating and punishing such offenses were judged adequate.

Murder, rape, assault, arson, pillage, and larceny were all punishable as offenses against various sections of the Uniform Code of Military justice, and there were many directives from Military Assistance Command, U.S. Army, Vietnam, and units specifying and prohibiting various acts in the war crimes category. Representatives of the military police, Criminal Investigation Division, Inspector General, and judge Advocate had experience in conducting investigations; they, as well as the commanders, and, indeed, all military personnel, had the responsibility for reporting possible violations of the laws of war so that an appropriate investigation could be conducted as specified by regulation.

Despite laws and preventive education, war crimes were committed. Most were isolated incidents, offenses committed by individual U.S. soldiers or small groups. Investigations were conducted, and the records of courts-martial proceedings contain the cases of individuals who were tried and punished. My Lai, the most notorious offense committed by U.S. troops in combat in Vietnam, was not the result of inadequate laws or lack of command emphasis on those laws; it was the failure of unit leaders to enforce the clear and well-known procedures set forth in applicable regulations.

It is tragically true that troops on both sides committed atrocities; but had it not been for the genuine concern of commanders at the highest levels that U.S., Vietnamese, and allied forces conduct themselves humanely and in accordance with the laws of war, the Vietnam War probably would have been far more brutal.

The efforts of the international community to codify the humanitarian law of war in 1949 drew upon examples from World War II which simply did not fit in Vietnam. The law left much room for expediency, political manipulation, and propaganda. The hazy line between civilian and combatant became even vaguer in Vietnam.

The inability of the International Committee of the Red Cross to function effectively on behalf of U.S., South Vietnamese, or other Free World forces was particularly tragic. The law of war was not completely ineffective; certainly many combatants and noncombatants survived the war because of the application of the law of war.

Kerrey has said he feels guilty about what happened and unable to justify it militarily or morally. "It may be that I did nothing wrong," Kerrey said. "But I felt like I did something wrong. Here's what happened, and I cannot justify it."

However, Kerrey has no plan to return the Bronze Star awarded to him for the raid. The citation that accompanied the medal said 21 Viet Cong were killed, two huts destroyed and two enemy weapons captured during the raid on Feb. 25, 1969.

"Another painful tragedy has been exposed before the April 30th liberation date, although no one is still vague about the crimes of the Americans during the war," the Tuoi Tre (Youth) newspaper said in a story headlined "Nightmare in Thanh Phong."

News of the incident has stirred memories of the 1968 My Lai massacre when, according to U.S. army figures, more than 300 civilians were slaughtered by U.S. troops. Vietnam puts the death toll from the massacre at My Lai at more than 500.