William Calley has, for the first time, apologized for his involvement in the My Lai massacre. Robert Farley wonders why the Kiwanis Club invited Calley to speak in the first place. That seems like the wrong question to me. I’m more interested in what prompted the man to apologize at this point in his life. As I understand it, he had spent years insisting that he was either: a) a good soldier for having carried out orders, or b) the victim for having carried out orders. I wonder if we’re finally getting far enough from the drama of Vietnam that the principal players can take stock of their performance. The other obvious example is Robert McNamara.
Advertisements
4 comments
August 23, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Rob_in_Hawaii
Why the Kiwanis Club of Columbus, GA invited Calley to speak doesn’t seem like much of a mystery to me. It’s a fairly conservative organization in a very, very conservative part of the country.
Like many on the right they probably still feel deep-seated anger for what they felt was a miscarriage of justice by “the Left” in “scapegoating” a young army lieutenant for the massacre.
The apology seemed unscripted. I think the Kiwanis Club had Calley there so they could “honor his service” or something, and they were surprised by what followed.
Calley’s regret seems sincere; his remorse genuine. But he still clings to the “just-following-orders defense” he offered at his trial. Yes, it’s a change, but not a big one, I’m afraid.
Have we gotten far enough away from the drama of Vietnam for those who were principal players (or principal cheerleaders) to take stock of their roles in the war? I doubt it.
Read through the comments section of the Ledger-Enquirer article linked to in the post and you’ll get a good look at the depth of anger that still swirls in this country over the Vietnam War in general and My Lai in particular. (Note: Some of the comments are so hateful about the victims they make for difficult reading.)
In spite of Calley and McNamara showing conditional contrition, I’m not sure we’ll see much change in how the war is seen by those responsible.
August 23, 2009 at 8:42 pm
TF Smith
What has always struck me as pathetic about Mr. Calley’s and Mr. Medina’s actions is that there were American soldiers on the scene at My Lai who saw what was happening, knew it was wrong, and acted.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/national/07thompson.html
When I was in boot camp, we had a class on military ethics, and the question came up about following an illegal order, and the instructor – who was an NCO – said quite simply that the Nuremberg defense was no defense at all, and wenbt on to cite the example of CWO Thompson.
If a bunch of 19-year-olds could receive and understand that lesson then, I remain utterly unconvinced that commissioned officers were ignorant of it in 1968.
August 24, 2009 at 4:19 am
valuethinker
No MacNamara was an absolute exception. Consider Walt Rostow or William C. Westmoreland as a counterpoint.
The ‘backstab’ legend is alive and well in American politics. Liberals ‘backstabbed’ a war that was ‘being won’.
John Prados can write all he wants– great book by the way, his latest.
But this is about modern politics.
And great men (Henry Kissinger) seldom apologize for their roles– AFAIK no one of import has ever apologized for Dresden or the firebombing of Tokyo, and I can’t think (off hand) of any one of the millions of Germans and other Europeans who participated in the Holocaust apologizing for that.
August 25, 2009 at 8:31 am
Bob
Calley and McNamara issued their rather tepid apologies in an attempt to control how history views them. Go to your grave entirely unrepentant and be viewed as monsters or issue half-hearted apologies and hope to be remembered as basically well-intentioned people who made mistakes.