The My Lai Massacre
at
Read the article Kelman & Hamilton: “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience” p. 76
a. Explain the phrase, “.. Crime of Obedience” as it relates to this article.
b. While the men of Charlie Company are described by the author as “average,” the Commander and one of the platoon leaders are described as “more unusual.” Explain what the author means by “unusual.”
c. Differentiate between “spontaneous” acts committed at My Lai versus “organized” acts. Give example of each.
d. Compare and contrast the behavior of Pfc. Meadio, Pfc. Dursi, and CWO Thompson in the face of what occurred. What would you have done, or what do you hope you would have done?
e. What was Calley’s defense?
f. Explain why the author says that subordinates take part in “a balancing act” when it comes to the issue of obeying orders.
g. Explain why the author feels that psychology is not terribly helpful in understanding what happened at My Lai.
h. Name and explain with examples the three social processes involved in creating the conditions leading to the massacre at My Lai.
Sample Solution
The phrase “Crime of Obedience” as used in the article Kelman & Hamilton: “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience” (1976) refers to the notion that war crimes can be committed not only by those who initiate them, but also by those who obey orders to perform them. The authors argue that while Lieutenant William Calley was ultimately responsible for many criminal acts at My Lai and found guilty in a court-martial, he was just one actor among many whose obedience enabled the massacre to occur.
In describing the men of Charlie Company as “average,” Kelman & Hamilton imply that they were everyday soldiers with no extraordinary qualities or characteristics beyond what would be expected from individuals serving in Vietnam. By contrast, they suggest that their commander Captain Ernest Medina and platoon leader First Lieutenant Michael Bernhardt were more “unusual.” This indicates that there were certain qualities or characteristics which set these two men apart from their peers; it may even suggest that these two officers had greater ambitions than other members of Charlie Company and thus behaved differently towards their subordinates. For example, Medina is described as having an aggressive leadership style and displaying an inclination towards violence when dealing with civilians whereas Bernhardt is portrayed as being overly enthusiastic about his role during the massacre. While it is clear from the article that both officers displayed questionable judgment during this incident, it appears from this description that they may have been motivated by something more than simple obedience to orders.