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.
"I beg to differ.... "
IMHO, Viet Nam was not lost; it was abandoned...I think it pointless to blame those who exposed Viet Nam, and if you want to blame Hugh, I highly recommend the book, "Forgotten Hero of My Lai," so you (and anyone else interested) can get a better idea of his role in the affair.
Having known him personally, I would say that those who accused him of grandstanding and trying to make a name for himself either have received bad info, or made pitifully wrong interpretations of whatever info they've received. Hugh was as unassuming as they come, and given his druthers, the whole thing never would have happened.
At the age of 24, Hugh's moral courage and compassion for his fellow man were put to a test that very few of us (thankfully) will ever experience. We can only hope that under the circumstances we would have taken the actions he did.
In ROTC in the mid-80s, Hugh's actions were discussed to illustrate the concept of professional ethics. I would suspect they still are and will continue to be for quite some time. Those that think he did something wrong really ought to take it up with TRADOC and have them delete the lesson from the POI.