My Lai Massacre Research Paper

During the course of the Vietnam War, many infamous events occurred, including the disastrous My Lai Massacre. On the morning of March 16, 1968 the Charlie Company, led by Lieutenant William Calley, marched into the small village of My Lai in Vietnam prepared to fight the enemy; the whole operation took less than an hour to complete. In the end, more than five hundred people-mostly women, young children and infants, and the elderly-were killed (Trueman “My Lai Massacre”). A frantic cover-up by the American army followed in an attempt to hide it from the public eye. One year later, it was publicized and reluctantly investigated by the government; however, the soldiers involved were not entirely open to discussion about the massacre and did not
want to reveal their role in it (Kohls “The My Lai Massacre Revisited”). Although not much is known about this event, extensive research has led to the narrowing down of the reasons behind it. The My Lai Massacre was mainly caused by a lack of proper training for the soldiers in the Charlie Company, multiple misunderstandings between the Charlie Company soldiers and their commanding officers, stress and tension, and numerous racial barriers that separated the Vietnamese from the Americans. The soldiers of the Charlie Company who were involved in the My Lai Massacre did not receive adequate training prior to the massacre. Before being let out onto the field, the Charlie Company only received a few weeks of training to prepare them for war, which was a reason why the My Lai Massacre’s aftermath was so extreme: Part of the problem was rooted in the lackadaisical manner in which this training was handled. Several of the men testified that they were given the United States’ Military Assistance Command, Vietnam’s ‘Nine Rules’ and other pocket cards, but since there had been no accompanying instructions they had put the cards in their pockets unread and never had any idea of their contents (Peers 230).

Due to the lack of training, the soldiers were not equipped with enough self control and determination to deal with the violent realities of war. Furthermore, the platoon leaders were inexperienced in warfare and leadership, so they could not train their soldiers for war the proper way: Like almost all other platoon leaders in South Vietnam, they were young and inexperienced in the art of war and leading. The evidence indicated that they wanted to be ‘nice guys’ or ‘buddies’ with their men and did not want to take any positive action to correct any wrongdoings that were committed since it might hurt their relationships with each other (Peers 233). This lack of authority created disciplinary problems because the soldiers did not have to follow strict rules or receive any punishment for misconduct. These lax rules let the men run almost free without any fear of consequence. Around the time before the My Lai Massacre, the soldiers of the Charlie Company felt frustration and stress because of the amount of pressure that was placed on them during the war. Since the soldiers were not used to fighting in Vietnam, they felt disconcerted because they did not like the change in battle tactics and terrain. The Viet Cong used guerilla warfare and fought mostly in the jungle, which was something that the soldiers were inexperienced with. They also used women and children as spies and sometimes as soldiers to fight against the United States’ armed forces during the course of the war (Goldstein, Marshall, and Schwartz 61). This new experience was not a welcome one because it caused constant anxiety and pressure for the soldiers and required them to always be on their guard. In addition to that, many soldiers felt no strong obligation to be cautious during the Vietnam War. Most of the soldiers had been drafted and were forced to fight in the Vietnam War against their will (Nelson 32). Since they had been pulled into this without their consent, they felt as though the war was a nuisance that they would like to get rid of. Many also felt disheartened because they could not communicate with their friends and family back in America. At this point in time, Vietnam had few methods of quick, long-distance communication, so it took extensive periods of time for any messages to be sent to and from the soldiers’ homes. Moreover, the time difference between the United States and Vietnam was great, so it was almost impossible for the company to converse directly with their relatives in America through the use of a telephone (Raimondo “Four Hours in My Lai”). The time difference made the men run on different schedules than their friends and family so it was difficult to find a convenient time for both parties to communicate with each other since they could not synchronize their agendas. Another causing factor of the My Lai Massacre was that many ethnic barriers divided the American soldiers from the Vietnamese civilians that surrounded them. The soldiers could not converse efficiently with the Vietnamese locals that lived around them because they did not understand the language. Before the My Lai Massacre occurred, it was deemed unnecessary by many of the commanding officers to learn the local language since they thought that it would not be very useful for war. For that reason, it was not taught to any of the men in the Charlie Company (Sack 89). This resulted in tension between the American soldiers and the Vietnamese because they could not communicate with great competency. The soldiers were also not able to differentiate between their enemies, the Viet Cong, and their allies, the South Vietnamese, resulting in great confusion as to who they needed to fight the war with. The armies of the Viet Cong and South Vietnamese were integrated, as well, which made it difficult to tell them apart from each other (Hersh Cover Up 192), This led the soldiers of the Charlie Company to believe that everyone in My Lai was a member of the Viet Cong, and, therefore, an enemy that needed to be eradicated in order to end the Vietnam War and give the United States a victory. A lack of respect for the Vietnamese was another cause of the My Lai Massacre that stemmed from the multiple racial barriers that already existed there. Vietnamese customs were ignored by the Charlie Company since they were not viewed as essential to war which caused distrust among the two sides. “The GIs were only given a few lectures about Vietnamese customs before being sent out into the field to fight the war” (Hersh My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and Its Aftermath 17). Since the local customs were being ignored, the Vietnamese felt disrespected by the soldiers and thought that they should not trust them. The Charlie Company looked down upon the Vietnamese people and thought that they were barbarians because they had a different kind of society than America and appeared to be less civilized than the soldiers, which caused a great amount of friction between the soldiers and the Vietnamese who did not believe the same things as the Americans. Perhaps the most disturbing fact was the low regard in which some of the men held the Vietnamese, especially the rural, or farming citizens, and poor people. This attitude appeared to have been particularly strong in Charlie Company, some of whose men viewed the Vietnamese with contempt, considering them subhuman, and below them on the level of dogs (Peers 230). Once more, the Vietnamese did not feel any respect from the men and thought that they were being insulted by the soldiers. Because of that, they did not want to give the soldiers any respect as a way of getting back at them. Some soldiers in the Charlie Company killed the Vietnamese unquestioningly and indiscriminately in order to avenge the deaths of their fallen friends. This thirst for revenge clouded their judgment and prevented them from making well-planned decisions that are needed during times of war: “The death of his buddies preyed on Meadlo’s mind and made him want to kill somebody in order to avenge them” (McCarthy79). The men rationalized that all of the Vietnamese were responsible for the deaths of their comrades and that made them think that they needed to kill the Vietnamese in order to even the score between the United States and the Viet Cong. On the day of the My Lai Massacre, many miscommunications and mixed orders occurred between the soldiers and their commanding officers that made the massacre occur.
Before invading My Lai, many soldiers report that they were ordered to kill all of the people in the village without hesitation. They testify being told that the village of My Lai was inhabited solely by the Viet Cong and that no regular civilians were living there or had ever lived there. They were additionally told to treat it as a free fire zone where they could kill anyone that they wanted to kill (Raimondo “Four Hours in My Lai”). These soldiers ended up destroying the village and executing many innocent villagers without realizing that they were not members of the Viet Cong. Other soldiers claim that their commanding officers had told them that the residents of My Lai had already been told evacuated and that only the Viet Cong would be left: “The company commanders were told that most of the population of My Lai were ‘Viet Cong’ or ‘Viet Cong sympathizers’ and were advised that most of the civilian inhabitants would be away from My Lai” (Goldstein, Marshall, and Schwartz 44). The villagers were then killed indiscriminately because it looked as though all of the innocent residents no longer lived there. The My Lai Massacre was a horrendous episode in the Vietnam War that occurred towards its end. It was caused mostly by poor training for the Charlie Company, misunderstood orders between the soldiers and
their commanding officers, racial barriers between the Vietnamese and the American soldiers, and stress on these men that was caused by the extreme pressure of the war. If the soldiers involved had been more careful, these problems could have been fixed and it is possible that it would not have happened at all because a thorough examination of these problems by the soldiers and their commanding officers would have led them to see many hitches in their plan. Furthermore, it is important to learn about the causes of the My Lai Massacre in order to prevent the destruction and aftermath of any future massacres from ever reaching this caliber and to stop history from repeating itself. Once killings like this are eliminated from war, the destruction caused by wars can be softened and the amount of people killed can be lowered.

Works Cited
Goldstein, Joseph, Burke Marshall, and Jack Schwartz.
The My Lai Massacre and Its Cover-up: Beyond the Reach of Law. New York, NY: The Free P, 1976. Print.
Hersh, Seymour M. Cover Up. New York, NY: Random House, 1970. Print.
Hersh, Seymour M. My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and Its Aftermath. New York, NY: Random House, 1970. Print.
Kohls, Gary. G. The My Lai Massacre Revisited. LewRockwell, 14 Mar. 2008. Web. 30 Jan. 2011. .
McCarthy, Mary. Medina. 1st ed. New York City, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972. 1-87. Print.
Nelson, Deborah. The War Behind Me: Vietnam Veterans Confront the Truth about U.S. War Crimes. New York City, NY: Basic Books, 2008. Print.
Peers, W.R.. The My Lai Inquiry. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &Company, 1979. Print.
Raimondo, Tony. Four Hours in My Lai: A Case Study. School of the Americas, 2011. Web. 25 Jan. 2011.
Sack, John. Lieutenant Calley: His Own Story. New York, NY: The Viking P, 1971. Print.
Trueman, Chris. My Lai Massacre. History Learning Site, 2011. Web. 25
Jan.2011.