The My Lai trial is very important especially for the purposes of history; since it has helped, many discover how bribery is bad and also how the events unfolded, one leading to the other. My Lai trial serves as a reference case in many institutions for the purposes of history and it gives a clear order of events of what happened during the massacre.
According to Marvin wolf, Viet Cong only won the half-truths war. This was allover the American media, campuses and big city streets. Wolf takes the fact that propaganda is a batch of lies lightly and falls into the trap of listening to it. The best questions for self-examination on this matter are, was the bombing the civilians a lie? Moreover, was My Lai a lie? At the very beginning, wolf tells us that the Americans never lost a battle to Viet Cong. He goes further to argue that the Russians lost many times to Germans who were better equipped during the World War 2 and despite all that the Russians kicked Germans out of U.S.S.R just like they had theirs kicked out of Vietnam. No body cares about who won the battles considering the number of boys killed. (Marvin and Wolf, 2006, pp 4)Winning the battle was one thing but losing the boys was a major grief especially to the family and state. These boys could have done better things and serve the country better.
A retired army general of the United States received censorship over the My Lai massacre investigation. The general has charges of giving bribes to military officials with hopes of winning 1 billion dollar tracking company contract. The retired general faced charges of paying $8100 in a period of two years to McDowell who was a contract officer in warren. Young who were facing accusations of having bribed someone chose to remain silence and did not comment on the comment on charges against him. The FBI chief in Michigan claimed that the army veteran aged 29 gave McDowell $390 for a period of 2 years. This was in pursuit of faking a win on an unidentified trucking company. (Marvin and Wolf, 2006, pp 4)
According to Walton H., young who was the president of his own firm of trucks remained in custody for more interrogations. This happened at the facility of warren just after giving McDowell the money as a bribe for securing a place. The FBI decided not to put charges against McDowell, for reason being he immediately reported the matter to the police and Walton explains how he did a good thing refusing such a good but corrupt deal, something that many could go for.
The one billion dollar contract that young was so much interested in was for manufacturing a palletized system for loading. This could have been a vehicle, tactically wheeled and designed for loading and unloading both supplies and ammunition at the war front. Walton who was at the centre of the deal made clarifications that the army has not chosen the main supplier for the machine and therefore could not help in giving the deal to H. young. Following to this, William c who was the general commander of the armed forces in the American division in Vietnam ordered for an immediate demotion of young. He could now be a colonel and William took away all the distinguished medals of service belonging to young. (Alexander and John, 1996, pp 183)
In the book named at the crossroads of justice, Paul explores the real events and there sequence that brought into being the massacres at My Lai. This was back in 1968 a few centuries ago. He makes arguments that the result of the Vietnam War and the leading circumstances on the day of the massacre were understandable. Nevertheless, that does not mean that they were acceptable. Paul repeatedly draws a thin line between acceptance and understanding. He advocates for the latter but warns carefully that the former could easily lead to complacency and forgetfulness. He continues to make arguments that following the engagements in Afghanistan by the United States, the satisfaction should get more rejection since it could easily lead to another My Lai massacre. This is a clear warning and he made emphasis that if not careful, another My Lai massacre could easily crop up.
Paul begins by making explorations on the conditions that lead people to killing having in mind that distance is a key difference in the psychology of killing. He further says it is very easy to kill someone when you cannot see him or her. Through making contrasts on peoples emotions, he makes illustrations of psychological obstacle extents that the men who committed the murders during the massacre had to overcome when killing close relatives. The killers were victims of circumstance since the completely deadly event happened right in the hands of the military because the occurrences were on the training grounds, something that makes them sympathy objects. (Alexander and James, 1996, pp 192)
On the other hand, it alienates them from sympathy since the ordinary citizen does not understand the extreme of the conditions under which the psychological boundaries could have been effectively broken. Those who committed the crimes therefore appear as monsters and not ordinary human beings as nothing can help understand the extremity of the event. Excellently Paul does not take either of the sides in writing but works on both possibilities and he solves the thin analytical line to allow and give room to exploration of the two possibilities. With provision of contexts for the events, there is an explanation in details. This is in regards to the many techniques that the soldiers used to kill more than the numbers in the previous wars. The ratio was one citizen of the United States to ten Vietnamese. Paul constructs a play-by-play account using court transcripts of the massacre that follows the ones who abstained from killing and the perpetrators alike. He pays much attention to one William L. who was the lieutenant of the so-called Charlie Company. This company executed the killings at My Lai and William enacted and ordered many of the killings himself. (Roberts, 1998, pp 80)
Through explorations of William’s reasons for joining war right from the beginning, Paul presents understandable though unjustifiable fleshed out character with reasons at the back of his actions. His technique is more reliable compared to if he assigned blame as the first thing. In our current society, it is important to note that the results of one person’s actions are never his alone and on the contrary a number of factors come together to produce the end result. Through making William, an escape goat and blaming everything that the company did on him anyone could dismiss the case thinking that it is an isolated incident not likely to happen again. Paul puts a human face on William and says anybody could do what he did if pushed to the same extremes.
Paul also argues with his readers because of authors like Christopher and Daniel who both write about the holocaust. If there is no acceptance of Paul’s assertions as true, one can draw many conclusions about the war and the atrocities of war in general. McDowell did a good thing not to take the bribe since he could have received a demotion as well. He teaches many that bribes are not good and in such situations it is always good to report to the relevant authorities although to some, this to some appears as betrayal. Paul did not take sides but argues that the decision was justified and the prize was worth it by not to receive charges or demotion.
Today, My Lai represents many such cases and massacre happening in different countries but silently. There are many Williams and McDowell’s but the system used to judge them is different. Not taking sides helped in the sense there was room to hear and read both sides of the coin. It is good to pick something from the case and help in one way or another overcomes such situations. It came from one mind but spread to many who decided to follow unwisely without asking questions like what will happen after I finish this? Moreover, what impact will this have in the entire world? (Roberts, 1998, pp 185)
Works cited
Arvin, J and Wolf, J. My Lai . Los Angeles, New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. the Federalist on the New Constitution. Glazier: Glazier & Co. Publishers, 1996.
Dwayne D. Hayes. The My Lai massacre. Detroit: Gale, 2010.
Herbert L. Carter. Testimony to US Army CID, Boston: Bedford Books, 1998, 80.
Olson and Randy Roberts (eds.), My Lai: a Brief History with Documents .Boston: Bedford Books, 1998.
William L. Calley, Testimony at Court-Martial , Boston: Bedford Books, 1998, 185.
William Wilson. I Had Prayed to God that This Thing Was Fiction. New York: New York times, 2000.
