0
   

Sad Historical Footnote to Vietnam War.

 
 
dlowan
 
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2003 11:11 pm
Saw this piece when I was looking up a link from another thread - it certainly matches comments I have heard from Vietnam vets about they type of things that could, and did, happen, in that horrible war.


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?oldflok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20031019%2F001588880.htm&sc=1110&floc=NW_5-L1

Report: Unit Killed Hundreds in Vietnam


TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - An elite unit of American soldiers mutilated and killed hundreds of unarmed villagers over seven months in 1967 during the Vietnam War, and an Army investigation was closed with no charges filed, The Blade reported Sunday.

Soldiers of the Tiger Force unit of the Army's 101st Airborne Division dropped grenades into bunkers where villagers - including women and children - hid, and shot farmers without warning, the newspaper reported. Soldiers told The Blade that they severed ears from the dead and strung them on shoelaces to wear around their necks.

The Army's 4 1/2-year investigation, never before made public, was initiated by a soldier outraged at the killings. The probe substantiated 20 war crimes by 18 soldiers and reached the Pentagon and White House before it was closed in 1975, The Blade said.

William Doyle, a former Tiger Force sergeant now living in Willow Springs, Mo., said he killed so many civilians in 1967 he lost count.


``We didn't expect to live. Nobody out there with any brains expected to live,'' he told the newspaper. ``The way to live is to kill because you don't have to worry about anybody who's dead.''


In an eight-month investigation, The Blade reviewed thousands of classified Army documents, National Archive records and radio logs and interviewed former members of the unit and relatives of those who died.


Tiger Force, a unit of 45 volunteers, was created to spy on forces of North Vietnam in South Vietnam's central highlands.


The Blade said it is not known how many Vietnamese civilians were killed.


Records show at least 78 were shot or stabbed, the newspaper said. Based on interviews with former Tiger Force soldiers and Vietnamese civilians, it is estimated the unit killed hundreds of unarmed people, The Blade said.


Army spokesman Joe Burlas told the newspaper last week that it might have been difficult to press charges in some of the cases because the statute of limitations expired by the time the final investigative report was filed in 1975.


He also cited a lack of evidence and access to the crime scene, since a number of years had passed. He would not comment on why the military did not seek out the evidence sooner.


According to The Blade, the rampage began in May 1967. No one knows what set it off. Less than a week after setting up camp in the central highlands, soldiers began torturing and killing prisoners in violation of American military law and the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the newspaper said.


Sgt. Forrest Miller told Army investigators the killing of prisoners was ``an unwritten law.''


Other soldiers said they sought revenge in the villages after unit members were killed and injured during sniper and grenade attacks.


``Everybody was bloodthirsty at the time, saying, 'We're going to get them back,''' former medic Rion Causey of Livermore, Calif., told The Blade.


Soldiers often cited conflicting views of commanders as a reason they killed unarmed people. Some commanders told investigators that civilians could be targeted in certain circumstances; others said they could never be attacked.


During the Army's investigation, 27 soldiers said severing ears from dead Vietnamese became routine.


``There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears,'' former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators.


The atrocities carried out by the unit came just months before the killing of about 500 Vietnamese civilians by an Army unit in 1968 at My Lai.


In the years after that, top military officials promised to take war crime accusations seriously. But records from the Tiger Force case show that didn't happen, The Blade said.


The newspaper found that commanders knew about the platoon's atrocities and in some cases encouraged the soldiers to continue the violence. Two soldiers who tried to stop the attacks were warned by their commanders to remain quiet before transferring to other units, according to military records.


The newspaper also said Army investigators learned about the atrocities in 1971 but took a year to interview witnesses. Two investigators pretended to look into the allegations while encouraging soldiers to keep quiet, soldiers told The Blade.


Four military legal experts who reviewed the Army's final report for the newspaper questioned the case's abrupt end.


``There should have been a (military grand jury) investigation of some kind done on this,'' said H. Wayne Elliott, a retired Army officer who teaches military law at the University of Virginia. ``I just can't believe this wasn't a pretty high-profile thing in the Pentagon.''


Former platoon members still could be prosecuted or sanctioned by the Army, but legal experts say that's unlikely because of the time that has elapsed.


Part of the unit's mission was to force villagers to move to refugee centers so they couldn't grow rice to feed the enemy. Many refused to go to the centers, which resembled prisons and lacked food.


``They wanted to stay on their land. They took no side in the war,'' recalled Lu Thuan, 67, a farmer, sitting in his home in the Song Ve Valley.


The soldiers began burning villages to force the people to leave, The Blade said.


One night, an elderly carpenter was beaten with a rifle before the unit's field commander, Lt. James Hawkins, shot and killed him as he pleaded for his life.


Hawkins denied the allegations when questioned by Army investigators in 1973. But he told The Blade he killed the man because his voice was loud enough to draw enemy attention.


``I eliminated that right there,'' said Hawkins, who retired from the Army in 1978 and now lives in Orlando, Fla.


It didn't stop there.


Two partially blind men found wandering in the valley were shot to death, records show. While approaching a rice paddy on July 28, 1967, platoon members opened fire on 10 elderly farmers. Four were killed.


Kieu Trac, now 72, recalled watching helplessly as his father fell.


``All they were doing was working in the fields,'' he said, pointing to the spot where his father and the others were killed. ``They thought the soldiers would leave them alone.''


William Carpenter, who lives just outside the town of Rayland near the Ohio-West Virginia border, told the newspaper he didn't fire his weapon.


``It was wrong,'' he said. ``Those people weren't bothering anybody.''


Villagers said they dug dozens of mass graves after the soldiers moved through the valley.


``We wouldn't even have meals because of the smell,'' said rice farmer Nguyen Dam, 66, interviewed in his home. ``I couldn't breathe the air sometimes. There were so many villagers who died, we couldn't bury them one by one.''


Of the 43 former platoon members interviewed by The Blade, a dozen expressed remorse for either committing or failing to stop the atrocities, and 10 have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,319 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2003 11:23 pm
I know these kind of tales so well, I don't have the stomach to read the whole thread. This is one of the major reasons why I protest this war so vehemently to this day.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2003 11:28 pm
Deb, this is the reason so many Vietnam vets don't like to discuss the war and why so many of them joined Veterans Against the War (not sure of the name).
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2003 11:41 pm
Sure - but actual specific - and seemingly long-lasting - massacres of this type are not often publicised.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2003 11:52 pm
That is just awful!!!
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2003 11:57 pm
The Freedom of Information Act has allowed many of these horror stories to be published for the first time.

Finally many of the Vietnam vets (like Dys) can talk about their experiences without being considered liars.

Bush won't even allow records of his governing of Texas to be make public. Makes you wonder.......
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 12:02 am
Well, war sucks at the best of times.

Interesting reading Robert Graves "Goodbye To All That" in terms of atrocities in WW I, for instance.

Interestingly, he saw the "colonials" - like Australians and Canadians, (not sure about the USA, when they joined in later - I can't remember)as very likely to do things like shoot prisoners, for instance - but not matched in such things by the Gurkhas and suchlike - whose ferocity was notorious, he said.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 12:04 am
In Vietnam one of the terrible things was the lack of a clearly defined combatant/civilian demarcation.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 12:09 am
In other words a civilian who's seen his/her entire family killed could become a combatant? Big surprise? What's the civilian death toll in Iraq? Something like 8000!!!!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 01:29 am
Sigh - I was not actually expressing surprise at the north's tatics in the war, Wilso - they were clearly brilliantly effective.

However, that blurring of boundaries was one of the aspects of those tactics that was incredibly demoralizing for the US and Australian troops - and hence worked well - and also, in its very effectiveness, helped to create an emotional landscape for troops that may well have contributed to the behaviour described in the article.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 02:38 am
My uncle was killed by so called "friendly fire" by the Americans in WWll and even though they claim it was an accident, I always wondered? He was a Canadian soldier.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 02:56 am
Er - why would they purposely kill someone from their own side, Montana?
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 08:12 am
Who knows dlowan. Why would they purposely kill harmless unarmed civilians?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 08:47 am
It almost seems like the whole group of tigers was dosed with some drugs. Weren't there tests with drugs to make the combatants more aggressive......? It would explain further the fact that no one seems to know how it started.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 08:55 am
Hmmm - well, Montana - my uncle flew bombers - including D Day and way beyond.

He killed himself some years later - family lore had it that, after D Day, he knew often that they were bombing allied troops, because the battle lines were so fluid and confused that nobody could keep up with them - and that this is what triggered the PTSD that led to his suicide. I think there were a lot of "friendly fire" deaths in that, as in most wars.

I do not think that anything excuses the actions described in the article above - however, I think there were conditions, including the never knowing whether civilians were Viet Cong or not, that helps to explain them to some extent.

Little k - there certainly seems to have been a lot of self-medicating going on!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 09:02 am
But weren't the self-medications just pot and alcohol?
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 09:39 am
dlowan
I can see your point.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 09:53 am
returning home after way
I wonder how it is possible to bring warriors home with their sanity restored after a war to mingle with civilized society? They will never be the same. Those never experiencing combat cannot imagine the personal trauma, including the Chicken Hawks running the civilian government.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2003 10:00 am
I know it BBB. Years after my uncle died, my grandmother (his mother) said that a man who goes to war is sometimes better off dying in the war.
0 Replies
 
acacia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 02:13 am
Can anyone tell me where the term "friendly fire" come from?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sad Historical Footnote to Vietnam War.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 04:06:22