Obama Vs. the Generals (A Politico article)

[APACHERAT]

I can certainly understand the frustration, HOWEVER....................My response to that is stay home!!! ROE's have a lot to do with civilian casualties, I see some individuals here comfortable as referring to them as collateral damage.

The major wars the United States has fought since the surrender of Japan in 1945 — in Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan — have produced colossal carnage. For most of them, we do not have an accurate sense of how many people died, but a conservative estimate is at least 6 million civilians and soldiers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...merican-wars/2011/12/05/gIQALCO4eP_story.html

I read the opinion piece.

As for Iraq, the majority of the Iraqi civilians who were killed were killed by their fellow Muslims.

The Iraq war was probably the most politically correct war ever fought by American troops until Obama became POTUS. Every time a soldier or Marine pulled the trigger on his weapon there was a JAG officer who was going to second guess that soldier or Marine decision. Then you had the MSM reporters who main concern was not reporting on what was really going on but searching for soldiers who might be violating the ROE and only reporting on the bad stuff happening never the positive stories.

As for Afghanistan today we don't even have to go there. Obama's PC ROE favor the enemy and has caused American troops to bleed and die in the name of political correctness.

In reference to Gen. Petraus, he's a Special Forces type of soldier. "Win there hearts and minds" seems to be their philosophy. Were as a battlefield type soldier it "Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow." They aren't there to win anybodies hearts or minds. They are there to kill the enemy. And when you're in combat it's not all about "Old Glory" it's about protecting your butt and protecting your buddy beside you and killing the guy who's trying to kill you and your buddies.

The opinion piece reference to Vietnam, most of the civilian deaths in the RVN were inflicted by the NVA, VC and ARVAN not Americans. That infamous photo of the little naked Vietnamese girl running down the road with her village being napalmed, There wasn't any Americans even in the area, not even any American advisor's. It was RVNAF planes who were bombing the village, not American. But the liberal media and the liberal revisionist historians misled just not the American people but the world that it was Americans napalming the village.

Most of the civilian deaths during the war in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and of course Cambodia) happened after the American pull out, when the radical left (New Left) had gained control of the Democrat Party. After back stabbing the American soldier in Vietnam they backed stabbed the RVN and cut off all funding to the RVN to continue the fight. There was a "Domino Theory" South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (The Killing Fields)

And when Saigon fell, the killing of civilians continued. 65,000 were executed by the North Vietnamese. One million sent to communist re-education camps where 165,000 died. And you had the Vietnamese refuges aka "Boat People." 1.5 million fled South Vietnam when North Vietnam broke the peace treaty. Nobody knows how many of the "Vietnamese Boat People " were raped and murdered by pirates or perished at sea, low ball, 50,000 and up to 200,000.

When some of those "Boat People" made it to America, they were confined to Camp Pendleton. The liberals in Los Angeles County said we don't want them living next to us. So it was Orange County who took in the Vietnamese refuges. Today Little Saigon in the OC has the largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam.

Remember how silent the left was in America when they heard what happened in Cambodia and that the communist had murdered or starved to death 1/4 to 1/3 of Cambodia's population. (1.7 - 2.5 million)

All of these wars in Indochina were just some of the battles of the Cold War that were fought. When America lost some of these battles, it wasn't just hundreds of thousands who would soon be murdered by the communist but millions.

When we won the Cold War in 1991, I was confused why liberals in Congress were trying to take credit when they surrendered back in 1975 and refused to continue the fight against communist expansion in the world.

It's like Jane Fonda more properly known as "Hanoi Jane" and Tom Hayden and the rest of the "New Left" during the 1960's and early 1970's, they weren't against the war being fought in Vietnam, they were against the United States wining the war in Vietnam. They are the ones who actually have the blood on their hands of millions.

 

[Montecresto]

I read the opinion piece.

As for Iraq, the majority of the Iraqi civilians who were killed were killed by their fellow Muslims.

The Iraq war was probably the most politically correct war ever fought by American troops until Obama became POTUS. Every time a soldier or Marine pulled the trigger on his weapon there was a JAG officer who was going to second guess that soldier or Marine decision. Then you had the MSM reporters who main concern was not reporting on what was really going on but searching for soldiers who might be violating the ROE and only reporting on the bad stuff happening never the positive stories.

As for Afghanistan today we don't even have to go there. Obama's PC ROE favor the enemy and has caused American troops to bleed and die in the name of political correctness.

In reference to Gen. Petraus, he's a Special Forces type of soldier. "Win there hearts and minds" seems to be their philosophy. Were as a battlefield type soldier it "Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow." They aren't there to win anybodies hearts or minds. They are there to kill the enemy. And when you're in combat it's not all about "Old Glory" it's about protecting your butt and protecting your buddy beside you and killing the guy who's trying to kill you and your buddies.

The opinion piece reference to Vietnam, most of the civilian deaths in the RVN were inflicted by the NVA, VC and ARVAN not Americans. That infamous photo of the little naked Vietnamese girl running down the road with her village being napalmed, There wasn't any Americans even in the area, not even any American advisor's. It was RVNAF planes who were bombing the village, not American. But the liberal media and the liberal revisionist historians misled just not the American people but the world that it was Americans napalming the village.

Most of the civilian deaths during the war in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and of course Cambodia) happened after the American pull out, when the radical left (New Left) had gained control of the Democrat Party. After back stabbing the American soldier in Vietnam they backed stabbed the RVN and cut off all funding to the RVN to continue the fight. There was a "Domino Theory" South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (The Killing Fields)

And when Saigon fell, the killing of civilians continued. 65,000 were executed by the North Vietnamese. One million sent to communist re-education camps where 165,000 died. And you had the Vietnamese refuges aka "Boat People." 1.5 million fled South Vietnam when North Vietnam broke the peace treaty. Nobody knows how many of the "Vietnamese Boat People " were raped and murdered by pirates or perished at sea, low ball, 50,000 and up to 200,000.

When some of those "Boat People" made it to America, they were confined to Camp Pendleton. The liberals in Los Angeles County said we don't want them living next to us. So it was Orange County who took in the Vietnamese refuges. Today Little Saigon in the OC has the largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam.

Remember how silent the left was in America when they heard what happened in Cambodia and that the communist had murdered or starved to death 1/4 to 1/3 of Cambodia's population. (1.7 - 2.5 million)

All of these wars in Indochina were just some of the battles of the Cold War that were fought. When America lost some of these battles, it wasn't just hundreds of thousands who would soon be murdered by the communist but millions.

When we won the Cold War in 1991, I was confused why liberals in Congress were trying to take credit when they surrendered back in 1975 and refused to continue the fight against communist expansion in the world.

It's like Jane Fonda more properly known as "Hanoi Jane" and Tom Hayden and the rest of the "New Left" during the 1960's and early 1970's, they weren't against the war being fought in Vietnam, they were against the United States wining the war in Vietnam. They are the ones who actually have the blood on their hands of millions.

Well I'm against the wars actually being fought. They haven't anything to do with US defence and security, and not enough to do with "US interests" in the region to kill and be killed for. And as for these ridiculous ME wars, winning can't be defined. If the "enemy" (not even adequately defined IMO) gets tired of fighting the GI, they can fade back in and lay low, when the GI goes home, for they must, Mr. Enemy comes back out, (Iraq). There's no clear objective, duration and cost never resembles promises, and in the end nothing gained, everything lost. Which is why I don't care if Obama is indeed "gutting" the military, cut a little deeper!

In 1968 US soldiers murdered several hundred Vietnamese civilians in the single most infamous incident of the Vietnam War. The My Lai massacre is often held to have been an aberration but investigative journalist Nick Turse has uncovered evidence that war crimes were committed by the US military on a far bigger scale.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23427726

 

[APACHERAT]

Well I'm against the wars actually being fought. They haven't anything to do with US defense and security, and not enough to do with "US interests" in the region to kill and be killed for. And as for these ridiculous ME wars, winning can't be defined. If the "enemy" (not even adequately defined IMO) gets tired of fighting the GI, they can fade back in and lay low, when the GI goes home, for they must, Mr. Enemy comes back out, (Iraq). There's no clear objective, duration and cost never resembles promises, and in the end nothing gained, everything lost. Which is why I don't care if Obama is indeed "gutting" the military, cut a little deeper!

In 1968 US soldiers murdered several hundred Vietnamese civilians in the single most infamous incident of the Vietnam War. The My Lai massacre is often held to have been an aberration but investigative journalist Nick Turse has uncovered evidence that war crimes were committed by the US military on a far bigger scale.

Re: "winning can't be defined." That exactly what Robert Gates said a couple of weeks ago in reference to war today.

I think former Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger under the Reagan administration had it right with the "Weinberger Doctrine."
(The Powell Doctrine is nothing more than a copy and paste of the Weinberger Doctrine" with an additional couple of sentences added.)

The elements of the Weinberger Doctrine include the following:

1. No overseas commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be made unless a vital interest of the United States or a U.S. ally is threatened.

2. If U.S. forces are committed, there should be total support - that is, sufficient resources and manpower to complete the mission.

3. If committed, U.S. forces must be given clearly defined political and military objectives. The forces must be large enough to be able to achieve these objectives.

4. There must be a continual assessment between the commitment and capability of U.S. forces and the objectives. These must be adjusted if necessary.

5. Before U.S. forces are committed, there must be reasonable assurances that the American people and their elected representatives support such a commitment.

6. Commitment of U.S. forces to combat must be the last resort.

 

[APACHERAT]

Well I'm against the wars actually being fought. They haven't anything to do with US defense and security, and not enough to do with "US interests" in the region to kill and be killed for. And as for these ridiculous ME wars, winning can't be defined. If the "enemy" (not even adequately defined IMO) gets tired of fighting the GI, they can fade back in and lay low, when the GI goes home, for they must, Mr. Enemy comes back out, (Iraq). There's no clear objective, duration and cost never resembles promises, and in the end nothing gained, everything lost. Which is why I don't care if Obama is indeed "gutting" the military, cut a little deeper!

In 1968 US soldiers murdered several hundred Vietnamese civilians in the single most infamous incident of the Vietnam War. The My Lai massacre is often held to have been an aberration but investigative journalist Nick Turse has uncovered evidence that war crimes were committed by the US military on a far bigger scale.

BBC News - Was My Lai just one of many massacres in Vietnam War?

The My Lai incident wasn't a war crime under international law. If it had happened in North Vietnam it would have been a war crime.

The United States military were in the RVN as guest of the RVN government and all American troops were held to the laws of the RVN.

The ROE concerning "Free Fire Zones" and "Restricted Fire Zones" in South Vietnam were not drawn up by the U.S. military but the RVN government.
The ROE in South Vietnam shouldn't be confused with the ROE that were forced upon the U.S. Air Force and Navy over North Vietnam. Those ROE were drawn up by civilians micromanaging a war from 10,000 miles away.

 

[Montecresto]

The My Lai incident wasn't a war crime under international law. If it had happened in North Vietnam it would have been a war crime.

The United States military were in the RVN as guest of the RVN government and all American troops were held to the laws of the RVN.

The ROE concerning "Free Fire Zones" and "Restricted Fire Zones" in South Vietnam were not drawn up by the U.S. military but the RVN government.
The ROE in South Vietnam shouldn't be confused with the ROE that were forced upon the U.S. Air Force and Navy over North Vietnam. Those ROE were drawn up by civilians micromanaging a war from 10,000 miles away.

US wars will always be micromanaged by civilians because that's the way our nation and constitution was founded. And those civilians will hire and fire Generals to ensure their desired outcome. FDR fired a commander for traveling to DC uninvited to protest the redeployment of the pacific fleet from the safe waters of San Diego, to the vulnerable waters of Pearl Harbor. George Bush fired 6 generals to get to his yes man, and hell, Obama's blowing it up.

I don't think it's respectful to refer to the My Lai massacre of civilians as an incident to minimize its horror. ROE' will take on a whole different meaning if America ever experiences an unprovoked war on our mainland.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: "winning can't be defined." That exactly what Robert Gates said a couple of weeks ago in reference to war today.

I think former Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger under the Reagan administration had it right with the "Weinberger Doctrine."
(The Powell Doctrine is nothing more than a copy and paste of the Weinberger Doctrine" with an additional couple of sentences added.)

The elements of the Weinberger Doctrine include the following:

1. No overseas commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be made unless a vital interest of the United States or a U.S. ally is threatened.

2. If U.S. forces are committed, there should be total support - that is, sufficient resources and manpower to complete the mission.

3. If committed, U.S. forces must be given clearly defined political and military objectives. The forces must be large enough to be able to achieve these objectives.

4. There must be a continual assessment between the commitment and capability of U.S. forces and the objectives. These must be adjusted if necessary.

5. Before U.S. forces are committed, there must be reasonable assurances that the American people and their elected representatives support such a commitment.

6. Commitment of U.S. forces to combat must be the last resort.

I mean the Cap Weinberger doctrine is basic and sound enough, it's just that number six is an empty, meaningless platitude.

 

[APACHERAT]

US wars will always be micromanaged by civilians because that's the way our nation and constitution was founded. And those civilians will hire and fire Generals to ensure their desired outcome. FDR fired a commander for traveling to DC uninvited to protest the redeployment of the pacific fleet from the safe waters of San Diego, to the vulnerable waters of Pearl Harbor. George Bush fired 6 generals to get to his yes man, and hell, Obama's blowing it up.

I don't think it's respectful to refer to the My Lai massacre of civilians as an incident to minimize its horror. ROE' will take on a whole different meaning if America ever experiences an unprovoked war on our mainland.

Actually before 1947 the civilians with in government didn't micromanage our wars. FDR during WW ll pretty much stuck to War Plan Orange that was written up by a Marine Corps Major and adopted in 1922. Plan Orange would be incorporated into Plan Rainbow that was adopted in the 1930's that was used in Europe to defeat Germany.

FDR surrounded himself with the military and listened relying on Gen. Marshal final advice.

FDR after listening to his military advisors in 1942 picked the Commanders for the European campaign and the war in the Pacific. Eisenhower for Europe and MacArthur in the South Pacific and Nimitz for the Central Pacific. The only micromanaging FDR had was establishing time lines for executing Plan Orange and Rainbow that were actually set by FDR's military chief of staffs.

Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz chose who would be fired and who would be in charge not FDR or any other civilians with in the FDR administration.

Before 1947 they way it always worked, POTUS used the Navy at will to go to war any time he felt like it. But always needed the approval of Congress to use the Army. Once the decision was made to use the military, the CnC (POTUS) told the War Department or Navy Department what was the mission and the civilian Secretary of War or navy told the generals and admirals do it and they did the rest.

Kind of funny that it was a Marine Corps Major who drew up the strategy and tactics that were used to win the naval war in the Pacific during WW ll.

Re: My Lai, if it wasn't an incident what was it ? It wasn't a war crime. An order was issued, the ROE were in writting, the RVN government approved them and a Lt. followed those unlawful orders.

South Vietnamese civilians who were VC were murdered with the nod from the RVN government. The RVN refused to press charges against Lt. Calley. Since the My Lai incident took place in the RVN, it wasn't a war crime under international law. So the U.S. military used the UCMJ and prosecuted Lt. Calley for murder.

Now go back and look at the public opinion polls back during the trial. The vast majority of Americans supported Lt. Calley. That's why Nixon stepped in. Why did most Americans sided with Calley ? Obvious, most of the population at the time lived during WW ll and most of the male population of the "Greatest Generation" have been to war and knew what war was.

If you go back in the DP Military Forum archives from last year you will find a thread I started that got a lot of activity where the topic was how the American population views on the My Lai incident had done a complete 180 compared to forty years ago.

If I were a member of Calley's rifle platoon would have I followed those orders ? Probably not. Would I have tried to stop it ? I couldn't answerer that because I wasn't there when it happened. And anyone today who says they would have tried to stop it is a ###### liar.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Actually before 1947 the civilians with in government didn't micromanage our wars. FDR during WW ll pretty much stuck to War Plan Orange that was written up by a Marine Corps Major and adopted in 1922. Plan Orange would be incorporated into Plan Rainbow that was adopted in the 1930's that was used in Europe to defeat Germany.

FDR surrounded himself with the military and listened relying on Gen. Marshal final advice.

FDR after listening to his military advisors in 1942 picked the Commanders for the European campaign and the war in the Pacific. Eisenhower for Europe and MacArthur in the South Pacific and Nimitz for the Central Pacific. The only micromanaging FDR had was establishing time lines for executing Plan Orange and Rainbow that were actually set by FDR's military chief of staffs.

Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz chose who would be fired and who would be in charge not FDR or any other civilians with in the FDR administration.

Before 1947 they way it always worked, POTUS used the Navy at will to go to war any time he felt like it. But always needed the approval of Congress to use the Army. Once the decision was made to use the military, the CnC (POTUS) told the War Department or Navy Department what was the mission and the civilian Secretary of War or navy told the generals and admirals do it and they did the rest.

Kind of funny that it was a Marine Corps Major who drew up the strategy and tactics that were used to win the naval war in the Pacific during WW ll.

Re: My Lai, if it wasn't an incident what was it ? It wasn't a war crime. An order was issued, the ROE were in writting, the RVN government approved them and a Lt. followed those unlawful orders.

South Vietnamese civilians who were VC were murdered with the nod from the RVN government. The RVN refused to press charges against Lt. Calley. Since the My Lai incident took place in the RVN, it wasn't a war crime under international law. So the U.S. military used the UCMJ and prosecuted Lt. Calley for murder.

Now go back and look at the public opinion polls back during the trial. The vast majority of Americans supported Lt. Calley. That's why Nixon stepped in. Why did most Americans sided with Calley ? Obvious, most of the population at the time lived during WW ll and most of the male population of the "Greatest Generation" have been to war and knew what war was.

If you go back in the DP Military Forum archives from last year you will find a thread I started that got a lot of activity where the topic was how the American population views on the My Lai incident had done a complete 180 compared to forty years ago.

If I were a member of Calley's rifle platoon would have I followed those orders ? Probably not. Would I have tried to stop it ? I couldn't answerer that because I wasn't there when it happened. And anyone today who says they would have tried to stop it is a ###### liar.

and what about the man who did try to stop the massacre, the helicopter pilot? he received death threats

 

[APACHERAT]

and what about the man who did try to stop the massacre, the helicopter pilot? he received death threats

From what I remember he received a hard time from his peers. Today he's a hero.

Like I said, back then the majority of Americans sided with Lt. Calley.

Most believed if anyone should have been tried in court it should have been the high ranking officer who issued the orders.

Most of the atrocities that were committed during the Vietnam War were committed by the VC, NVA and ARVAN not Americans. The ROK Marines and Tiger Division soldiers would cross the line but what they did was only against the NVA and VC.

 

[Montecresto]

Actually before 1947 the civilians with in government didn't micromanage our wars. FDR during WW ll pretty much stuck to War Plan Orange that was written up by a Marine Corps Major and adopted in 1922. Plan Orange would be incorporated into Plan Rainbow that was adopted in the 1930's that was used in Europe to defeat Germany.

FDR surrounded himself with the military and listened relying on Gen. Marshal final advice.

FDR after listening to his military advisors in 1942 picked the Commanders for the European campaign and the war in the Pacific. Eisenhower for Europe and MacArthur in the South Pacific and Nimitz for the Central Pacific. The only micromanaging FDR had was establishing time lines for executing Plan Orange and Rainbow that were actually set by FDR's military chief of staffs.

Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz chose who would be fired and who would be in charge not FDR or any other civilians with in the FDR administration.

Before 1947 they way it always worked, POTUS used the Navy at will to go to war any time he felt like it. But always needed the approval of Congress to use the Army. Once the decision was made to use the military, the CnC (POTUS) told the War Department or Navy Department what was the mission and the civilian Secretary of War or navy told the generals and admirals do it and they did the rest.

Kind of funny that it was a Marine Corps Major who drew up the strategy and tactics that were used to win the naval war in the Pacific during WW ll.

Re: My Lai, if it wasn't an incident what was it ? It wasn't a war crime. An order was issued, the ROE were in writting, the RVN government approved them and a Lt. followed those unlawful orders.

South Vietnamese civilians who were VC were murdered with the nod from the RVN government. The RVN refused to press charges against Lt. Calley. Since the My Lai incident took place in the RVN, it wasn't a war crime under international law. So the U.S. military used the UCMJ and prosecuted Lt. Calley for murder.

Now go back and look at the public opinion polls back during the trial. The vast majority of Americans supported Lt. Calley. That's why Nixon stepped in. Why did most Americans sided with Calley ? Obvious, most of the population at the time lived during WW ll and most of the male population of the "Greatest Generation" have been to war and knew what war was.

If you go back in the DP Military Forum archives from last year you will find a thread I started that got a lot of activity where the topic was how the American population views on the My Lai incident had done a complete 180 compared to forty years ago.

If I were a member of Calley's rifle platoon would have I followed those orders ? Probably not. Would I have tried to stop it ? I couldn't answerer that because I wasn't there when it happened. And anyone today who says they would have tried to stop it is a ###### liar.

But the president and secretary of war were civilians. As for My Lai, the technicality of crime doesn't move me. It was a tragic abuse of military power that you agreed was executed by order (though unlawful) and shouldn't have been followed and that you personally wouldn't have. Which is good. But it wasn't a band of rogue soldiers acting outside of command. What's the deal with the helicopter pilot that you referenced to another poster?

 

[APACHERAT]

But the president and secretary of war were civilians. As for My Lai, the technicality of crime doesn't move me. It was a tragic abuse of military power that you agreed was executed by order (though unlawful) and shouldn't have been followed and that you personally wouldn't have. Which is good. But it wasn't a band of rogue soldiers acting outside of command. What's the deal with the helicopter pilot that you referenced to another poster?

Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson


U.S. Army
Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson Hugh Thompson, a pilot of the 123rd Aviation Battalion of the 23rd Americal Division, flew an observational helicopter supporting Task Force Barker on March 16, 1968. For his interference during the Massacre and his subsequent reporting of the events to his superiors, Thompson was ostracized by many of his peers but earned respect from others.

Selected Men Involved with My Lai . My Lai . WGBH American Experience | PBS

I use "incident" to be historically correct because that's what it was called back then.

The opinion polls from 1971:

SURVEY RESULTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the military court which found (Lt. William) Calley guilty (in connection with the My Lai incident) and gave him a life sentence?

Agree 7%

Disagree 78%

No opinion 15%


From a telephone survey of 1,090 adults from across the United States conducted for President Nixon on April 1, 1971.


QUESTION: Do you think President Nixon should free Lt. William Calley, substantially reduce his sentence, or uphold his life imprisonment sentence (in connection with the My Lai incident)?

Free Lt. William Calley 51%

Substantially reduce his sentence 28%

Uphold his life immprisonment sentence 9%

No opinion 12%


From a telephone survey of 973 adults from across the United States conducted by Opinion Reasearch Corporation for President Nixon on April 5-6, 1971.


QUESTION 001: Do you approve or disapprove of the court martial finding that Lt. Calley is guilty of premeditated murder? (If 'Disapprove', ask Do you disapprove of the verdict because you think what happened at My Lai was not a crime, or because you think many others besides Lt. Calley share the responsibility for what happened?

Approve 11%

Disapprove/Not a crime 15%

Disapprove/Others share responsibility 56%

Disapprove/Both reasons (vol.) 1%

Disapprove/Other reasons (vol.) 5%

No opinion 11%


QUESTION 002: Do you think Lt. Calley is being made the scapegoat for the actions of others above him or not (with regard to the My Lai incident)?

Yes 70%

No 12%

No opinion 18%


QUESTION 003: Do you think the (Lt.) Calley sentence of life imprisonment (after his court martial finding of guilty in the My Lai incident) is fair or too harsh, or too lenient?

Fair 13%

Too harsh 79%

Too lenient 1%

No opinion 7%


From a telephone survey of 522 adults from across the United States conducted by The Gallup Organization for Newsweek in April, 1971.


QUESTION 069: (Now let me read you some statements that have been made about Lt. Calley and the My Lai incident. For each, tell me if you tend to agree or disagree.) . . . The soldiers at My Lai were only following orders from their higher ups.

Agree 77%

Disagree 9%

Not sure 14%


QUESTION 070: (Now let me read you some statements that have been made about Lt. Calley and the My Lai incident. For each, tell me if you tend to agree or disagree.) . . . Lt. Calley has been singled out unfairly as a scapegoat.

Agree 77%

Disagree 15%

Not sure 8%


QUESTION 076: How would you rate President Nixon on the way he reacted to the court-martial of Lt. Calley (in the My Lai incident)?

Excellent 27%

Pretty good 31%

Only fair 17%

Poor 18%

Not sure 7%


QUESTION 080: (Let me read you some statements that have been made about the way President Nixon reacted to the court-martial of Lt. Calley (in the My Lai incident) and tell me whether you agree or disagree.) . . . President Nixon has come close to undermining the system of military justice by showing sympathy with Lt. Calley.

Agree 28%

Disagree 58%

Not sure 14%


QUESTION 083: Do you tend to agree or disagree with the Army Court-martial Board the found Lt. William Calley guilty (in the My Lai incident)?

Agree with decision 24%

Disagree with decision 65%

Not sure 11%


From a personal survey of 1600 adults from across the United States conducted by Louis Harris and Associates in April, 1971.


Calley Court-Martial Survey Results

 

[Montecresto]

Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson


U.S. Army
Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson Hugh Thompson, a pilot of the 123rd Aviation Battalion of the 23rd Americal Division, flew an observational helicopter supporting Task Force Barker on March 16, 1968. For his interference during the Massacre and his subsequent reporting of the events to his superiors, Thompson was ostracized by many of his peers but earned respect from others.

Selected Men Involved with My Lai . My Lai . WGBH American Experience | PBS

I use "incident" to be historically correct because that's what it was called back then.

The opinion polls from 1971:

SURVEY RESULTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the military court which found (Lt. William) Calley guilty (in connection with the My Lai incident) and gave him a life sentence?

Agree 7%

Disagree 78%

No opinion 15%


From a telephone survey of 1,090 adults from across the United States conducted for President Nixon on April 1, 1971.


QUESTION: Do you think President Nixon should free Lt. William Calley, substantially reduce his sentence, or uphold his life imprisonment sentence (in connection with the My Lai incident)?

Free Lt. William Calley 51%

Substantially reduce his sentence 28%

Uphold his life immprisonment sentence 9%

No opinion 12%


From a telephone survey of 973 adults from across the United States conducted by Opinion Reasearch Corporation for President Nixon on April 5-6, 1971.


QUESTION 001: Do you approve or disapprove of the court martial finding that Lt. Calley is guilty of premeditated murder? (If 'Disapprove', ask Do you disapprove of the verdict because you think what happened at My Lai was not a crime, or because you think many others besides Lt. Calley share the responsibility for what happened?

Approve 11%

Disapprove/Not a crime 15%

Disapprove/Others share responsibility 56%

Disapprove/Both reasons (vol.) 1%

Disapprove/Other reasons (vol.) 5%

No opinion 11%


QUESTION 002: Do you think Lt. Calley is being made the scapegoat for the actions of others above him or not (with regard to the My Lai incident)?

Yes 70%

No 12%

No opinion 18%


QUESTION 003: Do you think the (Lt.) Calley sentence of life imprisonment (after his court martial finding of guilty in the My Lai incident) is fair or too harsh, or too lenient?

Fair 13%

Too harsh 79%

Too lenient 1%

No opinion 7%


From a telephone survey of 522 adults from across the United States conducted by The Gallup Organization for Newsweek in April, 1971.


QUESTION 069: (Now let me read you some statements that have been made about Lt. Calley and the My Lai incident. For each, tell me if you tend to agree or disagree.) . . . The soldiers at My Lai were only following orders from their higher ups.

Agree 77%

Disagree 9%

Not sure 14%


QUESTION 070: (Now let me read you some statements that have been made about Lt. Calley and the My Lai incident. For each, tell me if you tend to agree or disagree.) . . . Lt. Calley has been singled out unfairly as a scapegoat.

Agree 77%

Disagree 15%

Not sure 8%


QUESTION 076: How would you rate President Nixon on the way he reacted to the court-martial of Lt. Calley (in the My Lai incident)?

Excellent 27%

Pretty good 31%

Only fair 17%

Poor 18%

Not sure 7%


QUESTION 080: (Let me read you some statements that have been made about the way President Nixon reacted to the court-martial of Lt. Calley (in the My Lai incident) and tell me whether you agree or disagree.) . . . President Nixon has come close to undermining the system of military justice by showing sympathy with Lt. Calley.

Agree 28%

Disagree 58%

Not sure 14%


QUESTION 083: Do you tend to agree or disagree with the Army Court-martial Board the found Lt. William Calley guilty (in the My Lai incident)?

Agree with decision 24%

Disagree with decision 65%

Not sure 11%


From a personal survey of 1600 adults from across the United States conducted by Louis Harris and Associates in April, 1971.


Calley Court-Martial Survey Results

So, in your opinion, was there a failure of justice, or was the American public, or at least those polled, I'll informed of the attack, which I can understand why the military/government would call it an incident, though I disapprove.

 

[APACHERAT]

So, in your opinion, was there a failure of justice, or was the American public, or at least those polled, I'll informed of the attack, which I can understand why the military/government would call it an incident, though I disapprove.

My Lai is an Army thing. They can deal with it without any outside help.

The Marines did it differently, it was called a Zippo Raid.

When you were in-country you figured out why you were required to purchase a Zippo lighter during boot camp. :lol:

As you notice with the polls above, if the same poll was taken today it would probably a complete opposite. Those polled would have never been in combat or even served. Those who took the polls back in 71 were likely WW ll vets. They been there and done that. They were able to put themself in the same boots as those soldiers who were involved in the My Lai incident or massacre, whatever you want to call it. During the 50's and 60's most Americans called the Korean war a police action until the Vietnam War.

What it comes down to is putting yourself in to someones boots before passing judgement. From what I heard and read Lt. calley's men had a bad day prior to the My Lai incident. Was it pay back ? I think so.

When you have a bad day in the bush, it stays with you for days, weeks and in some cases for life.

The photo below will always stay in my mind.

It was taken just north of Hoi An just a few days after 10th Co. 2nd ROK Marines (Blue Dragons) had a bad day. The two American Marines with the PRC-25's on their backs are from my NGF Platoon, SUB UNIT ONE 1st ANGLICO based out of Hoi An. I think the second Marine from the left last name was Williams (?). A few days or so later this same company would walk into a NVA ambush. Another bad day.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The following article ran on the Politico back in November of 2013. The regulars down here on the PD military forum are aware of Obama's extremely low approval ratings by the military, the purging of over 197 high ranking flag and field grade officers by the Obama administration and that more American troops have been killed in Afghanistan in less than four years of Obama's first term as CnC than during the entire eight years during the Bush administration.

One thing mentioned in the article that I've been saying since I came to the DP, Obama and his White House are clueless about the chain of command and how it works.

Excerpts:

>"After a spate of news stories this summer citing tensions between President Barack Obama and his top military commanders over the possibility of U.S. intervention in Syria, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough hastened to assure the Washington Post that everything was, in fact, copacetic: The president “appreciates” candid military advice “above all else,” McDonough insisted, and has “close, and in some instances warm, relationships with his military chiefs,” as the Post put it. During my own time at the Pentagon, where I worked as an Obama appointee from the spring of 2009 until mid-2011, few seemed to hold this view. I recall asking one general, recently back from Afghanistan, if he’d shared his experiences and insights with the president. Rolling his eyes, he told me grimly that the White House preferred the military to be seen but not heard...."<


>"Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was explicitly critical in a September speech: “I believe that to blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple days, to underscore or validate a point or a principle, is not a strategy.”


According to most of those I interviewed, Gates’s scathing words reflect an unhappiness with the commander in chief that is widely shared in the military. “The military does not take kindly to people asking them to do things without thinking them through,” Eaton observes. “Military guys get kind of bemused when civilians tell them it’s OK to blow people to smithereens using bombs, as long as you don’t kill them with chemical weapons.”..."<


>"I don’t think Obama really realized we were losing the war in Afghanistan until late in 2009,” a retired Army general with substantial Afghanistan experience told me. Furious at the leak—which they blamed on the Pentagon—and reluctant to accept McChrystal’s grim conclusions, senior White House aides engaged in strategic counter-leaks. In their version, McChrystal and the Pentagon were trying to box in the president by pushing to deploy tens of thousands more troops and refusing to consider other approaches..."<

>"A former White House official with Pentagon experience says White House staff often remain willfully uninformed about the logic behind military recommendations: They “don’t want to take the time to go through the slide deck or get the full briefing. Basically, they don’t want to know.”..."<

>"President George W. Bush’s administration “always wanted military guys between themselves and whatever the problem was,” recalls a retired general who served in senior positions during that period. And Bush was more than willing to spend the money needed to make that happen..."<


Read more: Obama vs. the Generals - POLITICO Magazine

Good grief, AR - you really think that GWB was better for our troops and our nation than Obama? Dude, the problem was that we invaded Iraq to begin with. There was no NEED to invade Iraq - they had no WMD's, they were NOT affiliated with al-Qaeda, and they presented no clear and present danger to the American people.

Dubya wanted to be a war president...which was why he had a cabinet meeting on invading Iraq TEN DAYS after he took office the first time, over half a year before 9/11. THAT, sir, was why he lied us into a war with Iraq...or haven't you read the Downing Street Memos? Google that.

 

[APACHERAT]

Good grief, AR - you really think that GWB was better for our troops and our nation than Obama? Dude, the problem was that we invaded Iraq to begin with. There was no NEED to invade Iraq - they had no WMD's, they were NOT affiliated with al-Qaeda, and they presented no clear and present danger to the American people.

Dubya wanted to be a war president...which was why he had a cabinet meeting on invading Iraq TEN DAYS after he took office the first time, over half a year before 9/11. THAT, sir, was why he lied us into a war with Iraq...or haven't you read the Downing Street Memos? Google that.

How was that cease fire agreement with Iraq working out from 1993 to 2003 ?

President Clinton had eight years to deal with that thorn in the butt and I suppose he decided to leave it for the next administration to deal with.

I'm sure Glen you're more informed than the average leftist or even most Americans and know that Iraq never surrendered in 1991, that only a cease fire agreement was signed in which Iraq continued to violate for over eight years. Technically we been at war with Iraq until 2003 when Sadam Husein was removed from power. It took G.W. Bush to end that twelve year ongoing war of Iraq continuously locking on American and British aircraft and trying to shoot them down.

But this thread isn't about Bush 41 or 43 or Clinton but it's about an incompetent CnC who's waging a war against the U.S. military and it's generals and admirals by "changing the purpose and character" of the American military in the fashion of Joseph Stalin.

 

[Montecresto]

Good grief, AR - you really think that GWB was better for our troops and our nation than Obama? Dude, the problem was that we invaded Iraq to begin with. There was no NEED to invade Iraq - they had no WMD's, they were NOT affiliated with al-Qaeda, and they presented no clear and present danger to the American people.

Dubya wanted to be a war president...which was why he had a cabinet meeting on invading Iraq TEN DAYS after he took office the first time, over half a year before 9/11. THAT, sir, was why he lied us into a war with Iraq...or haven't you read the Downing Street Memos? Google that.

Glad to see that pointed out!

 

[Montecresto]

How was that cease fire agreement with Iraq working out from 1993 to 2003 ?

President Clinton had eight years to deal with that thorn in the butt and I suppose he decided to leave it for the next administration to deal with.

I'm sure Glen you're more informed than the average leftist or even most Americans and know that Iraq never surrendered in 1991, that only a cease fire agreement was signed in which Iraq continued to violate for over eight years. Technically we been at war with Iraq until 2003 when Sadam Husein was removed from power. It took G.W. Bush to end that twelve year ongoing war of Iraq continuously locking on American and British aircraft and trying to shoot them down.

But this thread isn't about Bush 41 or 43 or Clinton but it's about an incompetent CnC who's waging a war against the U.S. military and it's generals and admirals by "changing the purpose and character" of the American military in the fashion of Joseph Stalin.

I understand your frustration, for myself however, I welcome a less aggressive if less capable US military. But support an adequate defense for the homeland.

 

[APACHERAT]

I understand your frustration, for myself however, I welcome a less aggressive if less capable US military. But support an adequate defense for the homeland.

Well you have that "less capable U.S. military" today.

1/2 of the Marine Corps isn't combat ready to deploy, they aren't properly trained or equipped. And the U.S. Army is in worse shape where only two or three combat brigades out of 33 are properly trained and equipped to be deployed in to combat. The Army can't even deploy one division.

The current administration is more concerned with social engineering than national defense.

 

[Montecresto]

Well you have that "less capable U.S. military" today.

1/2 of the Marine Corps isn't combat ready to deploy, they aren't properly trained or equipped. And the U.S. Army is in worse shape where only two or three combat brigades out of 33 are properly trained and equipped to be deployed in to combat. The Army can't even deploy one division.

The current administration is more concerned with social engineering than national defense.

See, but we disagree on what national defense is.

 

[APACHERAT]

See, but we disagree on what national defense is.

Or are you saying how it should be used ? :lol:

There are a few NATO countries who use their military not as a fighting force but to keep the country's unemployment rate down.

Remember when the "Frogs" :blah: and the spaghetti eaters wanted to renegotiate the oil contract for Libyan oil and that third world dictator pervert refused the renegotiate the contract so the Frogs and Italians got the Brits :2ukflag: to come on board and use NATO for European national interest for cheaper oil and go into the regime change business.

But within a few weeks, NATO ran out of bombs ! So NATO had to turn to Obama :2usflag:

But Obama as usual was unsure, Qaddafi in 2003 had joined America and became an ally and would take over enhanced interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects for the CIA. But Obama thought it out and realized that his policy with Al Qaeda was not to capture Al Qaeda leaders to gather intelligence so Obama decided he had no use for Qaddafi and the War Powers Act and started using million dollar Tomahawk cruise missiles for taking out Qaddafi.

The bigger picture is, what in hell is the purpose of NATO if they ran out of bombs in just a few weeks ?

 

[Montecresto]

Or are you saying how it should be used ? :lol:

There are a few NATO countries who use their military not as a fighting force but to keep the country's unemployment rate down.

Remember when the "Frogs" :blah: and the spaghetti eaters wanted to renegotiate the oil contract for Libyan oil and that third world dictator pervert refused the renegotiate the contract so the Frogs and Italians got the Brits :2ukflag: to come on board and use NATO for European national interest for cheaper oil and go into the regime change business.

But within a few weeks, NATO ran out of bombs ! So NATO had to turn to Obama :2usflag:

But Obama as usual was unsure, Qaddafi in 2003 had joined America and became an ally and would take over enhanced interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects for the CIA. But Obama thought it out and realized that his policy with Al Qaeda was not to capture Al Qaeda leaders to gather intelligence so Obama decided he had no use for Qaddafi and the War Powers Act and started using million dollar Tomahawk cruise missiles for taking out Qaddafi.

The bigger picture is, what in hell is the purpose of NATO if they ran out of bombs in just a few weeks ?

If they saved their bombs to protect themselves in case Gaddafi attacked them, instead of using them to attack Gaddafi, they'd still have plenty of bombs.