[henry_thefirst]

"It's exposure certainly was not. This was the sort of thing that should have been handled by transferring Calley to some stateside post and telling him and his men to keep their damned mouths shut, or else, combined with the destruction of as much evidence as possible."


I don't know how any individual could say such a thing.

Americans must be held to a higher moral standard. Sending them to port, giving them a little slap on the wrist? Disgraceful and unAmerican. People must be held accountable, otherwise we have nothing to stand upon, our moral authority is totally sunk.

It wasn't worth the price? Vietnam was not lost because the Mai Lai massacre was exposed. It was lost because no Political will existed for victory. Hell, victory wasn't even defined in any concrete terms. We had the means for total victory in this limited war context, but there were no aims, thus no strategy was ever concocted that would lead to victory.

To blame it on the Mai Lai massacre (which clearly was what was implied by the statement) shows a bad assessment of history and the facts.

God bless that man who died and his family. He was a True American Hero.

[nwrep]

Vietnam was not lost because the Mai Lai massacre was exposed.

I beg to differ. I think it is precisely because My Lai was exposed that the leftists could, with some credibility, paint the US soldiers as barbarian hordes, a charge later repeated by John Kerry. My Lai's exposure could be brought up by anti-American forces time and time again as justification to hate and detest the military. My Lai's exposure in time gave enormous courage and credibility to all who opposed the war, and it became a rallying point for the anti-war movement.

In due course, My Lai's exposure help the left catalyze their opposition from one that would have been treasonous in another day and another time, to one of moral superiority, so much so, that even respected religious leaders like Billy Graham were duped by it.