The Vietnam War

Essay submitted by Unknown

The Vietnam War is truly one of the most unique wars ever fought by the Unites States

of by any country. It was never officially declared a war (Knowll, 3). It had no official

beginning nor an official end. It was fought over 10,000 miles away in a virtually

unknown country. The enemy and the allies looked exactly the alike, and may by day

be a friend but by night become an enemy (Aaseng 113). It matched the tried and true

tactics of World War Two against a hide, run, and shoot technique known as "Guerrilla

Warfare." It matched some of the best trained soldiers in the world against largely an

untrained militia of untrained farmers. The United States' soldiers had at least a meal to

look forward to unlike the Communist Vietnamese soldiers who considered a fine cuisine

to be cold rice and, if lucky, rat meat. The Vietnam War matched the most technically

advanced country with one of the least advanced, and the lesser advanced not only

beat but humiliated the strongest military in the world (Aaseng, 111). When the war

was finally showing signs of end, the Vietnamese returned to a newly unified communist

country while the United Stated soldiers returned to be called "baby killers", and were

often spat upon. With the complexities of war already long overdrawn because of the

length of the war it is no wonder the returning solders often left home confused and

returned home insane. Through an examination of the Vietnam War, in particular an

event know as the My Lai Massacre, and the people involved with both, it can be

proven that when the threshold for violence of a person is met or exceeded, the

resulting psychological scarring becomes the most prominent reason for war being hell.

Although officially, the Vietnam Conflict had neither a beginning nor an end, for the

purpose of this paper it can be best examined through the decade the United States

was involved: February 6, 1965 - August 30, 1975. During World War Two the French

had been a major ally to the United States in the defeat of Adolph Hitler and the Axis

Powers. France occupied and claimed the small coastline country of Vietnam in

Indochina. In this region there had been recent Communist uprisings funded by the

USSR The Vietnamese were willing to accept Communism in return for what they had

been fighting for over 2000 years: self rule. In 1950 the United States, owing a debt of

gratitude towards France, sent several advisors to aid French control in Vietnam. Over

the next decade and a half, the United States would send an entire Army and Navy to

aid the French in maintaining control in South Vietnam, which had separated from the

Communist North Vietnam by treaty in 1954. In early August of 1964 a small Vietcong

(term used to identify South Vietnamese in favor of communism and unification) patrol

boat had an encounter with a United States war ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. Gunfire was

exchanged, and, in the end, President Johnson agreed to allow aggressive retaliation.

On February 6, 1965, the United States began the bombing of North Vietnamese cities,

marking the unofficial start of the Vietnam War (Winthrop, 853-861).

In the years of the war to follow, the media began to play a role. Photo-journalists

would accompany platoons on missions and, through the aid of cameras and video

equipment, relate the stories to the American at home. Every night for the length of

the war news programs were saturated with reports of the happenings in Vietnam and

death tolls for the day. Grossly eggzrated enemy casualty numbers were reported,

giving the public a false view of happenings of the war. Suddenly on January 30, 1968 a

Vietcong uprising, now commonly known as the Tet Offensive, took place. Tet is the

Vietnamese new year and is commonly accepted as a cease-fire. With a cease-fire in

effect, most major cities' defensives were less tight. As if all at once, more than one

hundred South Vietnamese cities were being shelled with Vietcong gunfire. Included in

the cities were Saigon, capital of South Vietnam and home to the United States

Embassy. At first the Tet Offensive appeared a failure for North Vietnam. A large

portion of Vietcong troops were killed, and major Vietcong outposts were discovered.

Most of the overtaken cities, including Saigon, had been regained. Unfortunately for the

United States the timing of the Tet Offensive couldn't have been worse. For the past

three years the Americans at home had been promised a swift defeat of the (so called)

nearly destroyed Communists, which, after the retreating of the French, had become

the main goal of the United States. Worst of all, election year was approaching, and

the incumbent Richard Nixon was promising a swift plan of "Vietmenization" in which the

war was supposed to be placed in the hands of the South Vietnamese and allow for the

retreat of American soldiers. Johnson was so unconfident he didn't run for reelection.

Finally, in 1972 the last United States foot soldiers were removed from Vietnam, and in

1975 the North Vietnamese over took Saigon, renaming it Ho Chi Mien City after their

brilliant military leader. At this time the United States Embassy was surrendered,

marking the end of the war (Winthrop, 861-865).

As the soldiers returned home they had to adapt from a war in which over one million

people were killed. There were no banners or celebrations, and as the news of events

such as the My Lai Massacre spread, they were seen as ruthless killers. When these

soldiers risked their lives every minute for a reason they were not told and seemingly

was purposeless, and then returned to a country that despised them for what they did

negative effects are emanate(Winthrop, 861-865). During the war many soldiers

realized their maximum threshold for violence. When, as was the case for many soldiers,

this limit was reached and even exceeded, psychological scarring is going to take place.

This, combined with the return to a country that hated you for doing what you were

told to do, leads to a very defective psychological behavior.

March 16, 1968 is truly a date remembered for one of the most horrendous acts ever

committed by the United States. On this day, Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 20th

Infantry, under the leadership of twenty-four year old 2nd Lt. William L. Calley Jr.

became responsible for the execution of over 300 Vietnamese civilians, mostly old men,

women, and children. This atrocity, now known as the My Lai Massacre, opened the

eyes of many to the realities of war. The infantry men of this battalion were ordered to

systematically murder every inhabitant in this small South Vietnamese hamlet for

suspicion of the harboring of Vietcong Soldiers. In this village no signs of Vietcong

inhabitants were found. Neither a single uniform nor a gun was found anywhere (Hersh,

11-44) . This leads one to wonder about the motives involved. Was the massacre

necessarily, or was it simply an outlet for built up anger and frustration towards the

very idea of the Vietnamese (Knowll, 104-110)? It is well known that the majority of

United States troops didn't want to be in Vietnam. A lesser known fact is that the

majority of South Vietnamese didn't want United States troops there either. Infantry

men in the army were usually at the lesser end of intelligence scale because more

intelligent soldiers were used more as medics or as officers. In fact, thirteen of the 130

men in Charlie Company had failed the army's basic intelligence test, which should have

stopped them from even being in Vietnam (Knowll, 18). This intelligence limit means the

soldiers had less comprehension skill and probably had a lower threshold for violence.

Also, by this time soldiers in Vietnam had became aware of the treatment they would

receive when they returned home. "Doves" (a generic term for anti-war demonstrators)

were well known for acts such as waiting for a solider to return home so they could

harass him with questions like "How many babies did you kill today?" (Winthrop,

861-865). As if the war itself wasn't traumatic enough, these extra influences make the

event of mental damage very possible. These issues raise the question as to whether

they are simply excuses for the terrible actions such as the one at My Lai, or were the

happenings such of My Lai the result of these influences. Or is it possible that the My

Lai Massacre occurred for a totally different, perhaps from the anger and frustration of

one man given too much power?

William L. Calley Jr., born 1944, grew up in Miami Florida. He attended grammar and high

school there, and in 1963 flunked out of college after earning four F's. He became very

uptight, and began smoking up to four packs of cigarettes a day. After leaving college,

Calley became a switchman for the East Coast Railway. In 1964 he made local headlines

when he was arrested for allowing a forty-seven car freight train to block rush-hour

traffic for thirty minutes.. In 1965, Calley left Florida and eventually enlisted in the

Army in 1966. In spite of poor academic performance, Calley joined Officers' Training

School at Ft. Benning, GA and graduated without even learning to read a map. In 1967

Calley became the platoon leader for Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry

Captain Ernest Medina, the company's commanding officer, was a large, powerfully built

man who was certainly respected, respect that he earned rather than demanded. Lt.

Calley was described as being boyish-looking. He was a mere five feet-three inches tall,

and seemed jealous of the respect the soldiers had for Medina (Hersh, 19). Troops

under Calley said "he was always trying to be the big man; always would be the one to

beat them [Vietnamese] up. He didn't know what was going on half the time."(Hersh,

20) Calley, unlike Medina, placed high emphasis on respect towards himself; respect he

simply demanded and wasn't willing to earn. Then, on March 16, Lt. Calley became fed

up with not receiving the respect the thought the deserved. On a routine investigation

of the small village of My Lai, Calley discovered an outlet for his rage (Hersh, Chpt. 2).

Calley ordered for the 300 plus Vietnamese civilians to be lined up and be systematically

excited, one by one while the others watched. Every civilian found was killed. The

following is a portion of a letter from a GI concerning the incident:

...Some of the guys are so careless! Today a buddy of mine called "La Dai" (come here)

into a hut. An old man came out of the shelter. My buddy told the man to get away

from the hut, and since we have to move quickly on a sweep, just threw a hand

grenade into the shelter. As he pulled the pin the old man got excited and started

jabbering and running toward my buddy and the hut. A GI, not understanding, stopped

the old man with a football tackle just as my buddy threw the grenade... After he

threw it, and was running for cover, we all heard a baby crying from inside the shelter.

There was nothing we could do.... After the explosion we found the mother, two

children (ages about six and twelve, boy and girl), and an almost newborn baby. That is

what the old man was trying to tell us!... (Hersh, 12-13)

November 17, 1970 Lt. Calley was tried for, and eventually convicted for, his part in

the premeditated murder of 109 "Oriental human beings". In a court-martial, murder is

punishable by death by hanging. After a long deliberation, the jury returned a sentence

of life imprisonment, of which William Calley served three years. Calley is now a

successful jeweler in Columbus, Georgia (Knappmar, 598-601).

Whether or not Lt. Calley was acting on order, as he claimed, or out of pure rage may

never be known. It is known, however, that without the psychological stresses caused

by Vietnam, the My Lai Massacre may have never happened. The remainder of this

paper is an investigation of the causes and effects of those stresses in attempt to

answer "why", and, ideally, prevent another atrocity like the My Lai Massacre.

In any war, psychological stresses are inevitable. The memory of risking one's life will

not fade quickly and is reason alone enough to drive one insane. As stated previously,

however, the war in Vietnam provided additional stresses. A major stress was the fact

that neither the citizens of the United States nor of South Vietnam accepted American

interference. A solider was usually uninformed of the intentions of their government.

Soldiers are taught to carry out orders without asking questions. This could lead to a

solider developing a belief that all fighting was being done in vain. Eventually, a solider

would lose care in what he was doing. His self worth would lower, thus lowering his

view of worth of others. When he sees all the death and destruction in what has

became his world and realizes he is partly responsible, he begins to regard himself as a

killer, who himself deserves death. It is highly probable that even with the end of a tour

soldiers go home with this "responsible killer" attitude, and is forced back into an

unaccepting society still believing he doesn't deserve to live, and often questioning why

he still is. Over the years, these repressed feelings grow until they eventually become

uncontrollable, and take control of the person, physically and mentally. There are two

major viewpoints on the psychological effects of events such as My Lai. One of these

views is from the commanded solider. If the happenings of everyday life in Vietnam are

enough to drive one insane, the effects of watching and participating a massacre of

over 300 innocent people are truly destructive. Months after such happenings, the

soldiers are expected to return to normal, everyday civilian life. This in its self is a form

of denial. The same pressures on every solider are on those witnesses to the outrages,

only the witness must find a way to deal with both. Common sense leads one to

deduce that if causes are extreme the results should be expected, too, to be extreme.

Another viewpoint is that from the commanding officers. If Lt. Calley really was

responsible for the My Lai happenings, one must wonder why he wanted it to happen.

Perhaps the officer was simply fed up with the war situation. He may have been tires of

having responsibility for not only himself, but for all the soldiers he commanded. Not

knowing the enemy from the ally could cause a situation like the "fish in water" tactic.

This method, which was used highly as a rationalization, stated that one way to be

sure to catch a fish would be to eliminate the water, just as a method killing "Charlie"

would be to kill all Vietnamese. It can also be said, however, that the commanding

officer isn't to blame, but his commanders are. Not being in the war could lead to a

sense of "dehumanization" towards the Vietnamese, so it becomes easier to order a

massacre from Washington than to become part of one in Vietnam. One must also

remember, however, that the highest rank in the army is the President, and the citizens

are directly responsible for whom this may be.

Through this research, it has been proven that because of events such the My Lai

massacre in Vietnam there were certainly psychological changes in those involved.

Today's writers too often get caught up in what the media wants the people to believe.

The only way to aquire pure, unedited information is to speak personally to someone

who has experienced events such as the one mentioned. No matter what their view of

the war is, when asked if war will change a person the most common response will be

"Nobody ever returns the same" (Knowll, 127) (Mahan Interview). With the certainty of

scarring evident, one must begin to question why this scarring happens and why people

have a threshold for violence. The most obvious and most correct response is that war

wasn't meant to be. If people were designed with a threshold, it wasn't meant to be

exceeded. This leads one to deduce that although sometimes seemingly necessary, war

is hell and it is wrong.