The Great Atrocity Hunt

Murder may have been committed at Songmy; nevertheless, what actually happened remains unclear. Statements made before TV cameras and interviews granted to itinerant reporters do not establish facts, and we will not know what happened before the evidence is assembled and the testimony, given under oath, is subjected to cross-examination. Every American serviceman arriving in Vietnam is instructed that “war crimes” include the “killing of spies, or other persons who have committed hostile acts, without trial,” and Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not distinguish in the definition of murder between killing an American and killing a nonAmerican civilian or prisoner. On the other hand, as everyone knows, a guerrilla war such as is being waged in Vietnam is full of ambiguities: if the Vietcong chooses to build its stronghold under a village, and the villagers, either through choice or coercion, continue to reside in the village, some perhaps to cooperate with the VC, does that mean the stronghold is immune from attack? The judicial process will establish whether a crime has been committed; if the answer is yes, the guilty, if still living, will be punished. Why is there any need, just now, to say more than that?

Whether atrocities were committed at Songmy we do not as yet know; but more than enough atrocities against human reason have been committed in response by the American media. That “America and Americans must stand in the larger dock of guilt and human conscience for what happened at Mylai seems inescapable.” So observed Time, adding: “Men in American uniforms slaughtered the civilians of Mylai, and in so doing humiliated the U.S. and called in question the U.S. mission in Vietnam in a way that all the antiwar protesters could never have done.” One’s mind staggers: Are “America and Americans” generally guilty, the same America and Americans now preparing to bring the accused to trial? And even if it turns out that atrocities were committed, how does this call in question the U.S. mission in Vietnam? Do the innumerable atrocities committed by both sides in World War II add up to the proposition that resistance to the Nazis ought to have been abandoned? On April 9-10, 1948, Israeli commandos massacred all 254 inhabitants of the Arab village of Deir Yassin—men, women and children. Does Time conclude from this that the Israeli position, in toto, is morally indefensible? During the American Civil War atrocity was not an aberration, the act of bewildered or temporarily unbalanced men, but a matter of settled military policy. “Until we can repopulate Georgia,” said General Sherman, “it is useless for us to occupy it; but the utter destruction of its roads, houses and people will cripple their military resources.” Does Time conclude that the Union, therefore, should have been permitted to disintegrate? Irrational and irresponsible comment on Songmy has become collective madness.

Featured Tags

Murder may have been committed at Songmy; nevertheless, what actually happened remains unclear. Statements made before TV cameras and interviews granted to itinerant reporters do not establish facts, and we will not know what happened before the evidence is assembled and the testimony, given under oath, is subjected to cross-examination. Every American serviceman arriving in Vietnam is instructed that “war crimes” include the “killing of spies, or other persons who have committed hostile acts, without trial,” and Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not distinguish in the definition of murder between killing an American and killing a nonAmerican civilian or prisoner. On the other hand, as everyone knows, a guerrilla war such as is being waged in Vietnam is full of ambiguities: if the Vietcong chooses to build its stronghold under a village, and the villagers, either through choice or coercion, continue to reside in the village, some perhaps to cooperate with the VC, does that mean the stronghold is immune from attack? The judicial process will establish whether a crime has been committed; if the answer is yes, the guilty, if still living, will be punished. Why is there any need, just now, to say more than that?

Whether atrocities were committed at Songmy we do not as yet know; but more than enough atrocities against human reason have been committed in response by the American media. That “America and Americans must stand in the larger dock of guilt and human conscience for what happened at Mylai seems inescapable.” So observed Time, adding: “Men in American uniforms slaughtered the civilians of Mylai, and in so doing humiliated the U.S. and called in question the U.S. mission in Vietnam in a way that all the antiwar protesters could never have done.” One’s mind staggers: Are “America and Americans” generally guilty, the same America and Americans now preparing to bring the accused to trial? And even if it turns out that atrocities were committed, how does this call in question the U.S. mission in Vietnam? Do the innumerable atrocities committed by both sides in World War II add up to the proposition that resistance to the Nazis ought to have been abandoned? On April 9-10, 1948, Israeli commandos massacred all 254 inhabitants of the Arab village of Deir Yassin—men, women and children. Does Time conclude from this that the Israeli position, in toto, is morally indefensible? During the American Civil War atrocity was not an aberration, the act of bewildered or temporarily unbalanced men, but a matter of settled military policy. “Until we can repopulate Georgia,” said General Sherman, “it is useless for us to occupy it; but the utter destruction of its roads, houses and people will cripple their military resources.” Does Time conclude that the Union, therefore, should have been permitted to disintegrate? Irrational and irresponsible comment on Songmy has become collective madness.