Question 1
The rules of engagement are very important in the context of war. Failure to abide by the rules of engagement can have devastating effects both to the military personnel as well as to the civilians in the society. The Geneva Convention clearly spells out the rules of engagement in war situations. Failure to abide by the laws is an international crime, which might lead to international condemnation and legal action. It can also harm many civilians, including children and women who are not in any way involved in the conflict, as it happened in My Lai.
Actions of some of the soldiers at My Lai rose to devastating levels due to several reasons. Firstly, as the documentarian asserts, the fundamental breakdown in the structures of authority was a major factor that propelled the soldiers into behaving badly. The top officers that are supposed to give orders to the junior officers dictate the actions of the junior soldiers. In case of a breakdown in the chain of command, the juniors take the orders in their own hands and do whatever they want. Medina, the commanding officer, failed in supervising the operation, which led to other officers taking control of the situation (Goodman 2010). This is a good reason for their disastrous behavior as they are not accountable to any authority. They therefore performed their actions unprofessionally. Reduced threat of punishment due to the lack of command to monitor their actions during engagement further complicated matters. Maedlo cannot resist the orders from Calley who asks him to shoot down and “waste” the innocent women rounded up during the My Lai operation (Goodman 2010). This was due to a breakdown in the chain of command.
Stress is a major factor that contributed to the behavior of the soldiers. The Vietcong fighter’s tactics of guerilla warfare put the Americans in a constant cycle of terror. Fighting guerilla warfare in the bush can be emotionally burdening to the soldiers as they are in constant threat of attack. Furthermore, it is very difficult to distinguish between the guerillas and the civilians because the guerillas are not uniformed therefore they can wage war from any front. Emotionally, the constant threat of attack is a reason enough to make the soldiers behave in the manner that they did. According to Freud, detachment from the family in the so-called civilized society is a major cause of psychological stress that limits the actions of individuals. This is because it limits individuals from enjoying some of their rights such as sexual fulfillment, which leads to frustrations and stress (Freud and McLintock 68).
The frustrations then trigger aggressive conduct that informs the unprofessional behavior of soldiers such as Calley and Meadlo. Thompson’s fury at the proceedings of the massacre necessitated him to report the happenings to brigade headquarters. By the virtue of being inferior in the chain of command, the junior officers are already subjects and must therefore follow the orders issued by their superiors. The power of ideology, as stipulated out by Althusser comes into play. He argues that an ideology puts the junior officers at the mercy of the senior ones, thus they abide by the repressive state apparatus and follow to the latter the commands as they are given (Althusser 307). This explains the actions of Meadlo who simply follows the orders of Calley, his superior in the chain of command, without questioning.
The American public and the civilian leadership reject the military tribunals to prosecute and incarcerate Calley and other colleagues because they believe that the atrocities committed were in defense of the American soldiers most of whom won public empathy. Opinion polls after the atrocities indicated that many civilians were against the Vietnamese invasion. As Althusser puts it, the public is engulfed in ideological misrepresentation where social realities are mostly illusions and do not represent the real circumstances (Althusser 309). Most Americans were guided by imaginary thoughts rather than the realities on the ground. That is why they fail to comprehend the magnitude of the My Lai incident and the need for the culprits to face legal action.
The political class also wants to keep this illusion stuck in the minds of the people so that they do not question the actions of the political structure. The ideological concept, as Althusser points out, exists as an apparatus for indoctrinating the populace and hiding the real intentions or motives behind the actions of the army who are repressive state apparatus. The ideological state apparatus in this case is the political class who want to dominate the public and propagate their values and ideas (Althusser 305). Through establishing the ideology, the civilian leadership turns the public into subjects, showing them that they are naturally irreplaceable and distinguishable from members of other countries. The public does not recognize the interaction or the interplay of factors, which is a testimony to the power of ideology in indoctrinating the populace (Althusser 309).
From these differences, we can learn that there are underlying issues that inform the actions of individuals and leaders when faced with difficult situations. All people have varying personalities, which dictate their actions, and people will always act differently when confronted with the same situation (Freud and McLintock 86). Moreover, the civilian leaderships in particular have selfish interests that they can use all means to satisfy. Ideology is a powerful tool that can be easily manipulated by those in power to indoctrinate the masses, who then act blindly. People should learn to take stands when confronted with such pertinent issues.
Question 2
According to Alex Gibney, the 9/11 serves as a moment of culture shock that inflects all aspects of US engagement with the world. The mystification of the definition of torture that allowed for the practices at Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo Bay resulted from the events that happened in September of 2001 (Gibney 2007). Prior to that fateful day, people were peacefully going on with their daily endeavors without any fear or threat of imminent attack. However, with the attacks on that day, producer Alex Gibney depicts that the United States radically changed its perception of the other parts of the world particularly the Islamic countries. Consequently, the United States, mainly in its foreign policy, adapted a hard-line stance and declared terrorism its number one enemy, which required solutions through all available means. Subsequently, punishment tactics for those suspected of indulgence in terrorism activities were also revised to effectively combat the menace of terrorism. The measures taken to “safeguard national interests and integrity” saw the redefinition of torture and treatment of torture suspects with immediate effect. This manifests itself in the harsh treatment of the taxi driver in Bagram that leads to his death (Gibney 2007).
The mystification of terror has led the government to increase allocation in the fight against terrorism. The war on terror has been used a ground to use taxpayers money in the pursuit of the terrorists. The 9/11 attacks laid the grounds for the invasion of Iraq to root out the “terrorists”. In the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, American soldiers mistreated the prisoners by using unconventional torture methods that are inhumane and show no regard for human life. Multiple torture techniques including water boarding are on the increase following the attacks. Some of these torture techniques contravene the laws governing treatment of prisoners and suspects (Gibney 2007). The US has also invaded other parts of the world including Afghanistan in the name of rooting out and destabilizing terrorist organizations. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States government commissioned the use of torture against Al-Qaeda, Taliban and other terrorist groups as a means of gathering intelligence and information regarding the operations of these terrorist groups.
The administration enacted legislations authorizing military personnel to use torture when dealing with suspected militants. The Department Of Justice, CIA, Department Of Defense, and other key players unilaterally formulated reports in favor of adopting violent detainee interrogation mechanisms to get information from the terrorists (Gibney 2007). The Military Commission’s Act, “torture memo” by the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense’s Working Group Report are some of the national reports that proposed torture as an interrogation tool after the 9/11 incidence. These reports were in contravention of rights of prisoners as stipulated in the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, the administration deliberated that suspending the principles of the Geneva Convention in that particular context was legal.
Foucault might consider the impact of the 9/11 on U.S. as stamping the authority and taking a greater role in international political, military and cultural agenda in the world. He would consider the cultural hegemonic impact that 9/11 bestowed upon the United States so that it assumed a greater role shaping international politics. The attacks cemented cultural identity among the American people giving them a unique bond and sense of togetherness, which helps them to unite and confront the threat as a united people. Foucault would furthermore view the impact of the attacks as an opportunity for the American people to cement the unique American culture and take the advantage presented by this uniqueness to shape events in other parts of the world. Barthes would attest that the attacks have shaped the ideology of post modernity in the American society, organized around models, images and signs that characterized America after the September 11 attacks (Althusser 311). Culture shaped the various spheres of American life including the political, economic and social dimensions especially after the attacks, therefore Barthes would be of the view that postmodernism takes shape after the attacks. He would attest that it necessitated the revolution of a new ideology in the American public and private spheres of life when dealing with global issues. Victory, as Barthes might have viewed it, would not come from American intervention in the countries of the Middle East after the 9/11 attack.
Civilian leadership and popular culture in the United States play a vital role in shaping US understanding of torture. The civilian leadership has indoctrinated the masses on the need to fight terrorism and other acts meant to harm Americans through the most appropriate mechanisms available. Therefore, if torture can meet this end and deliver the required consequences, the leadership has argued, it’s incorporation for purposes of national security and safeguarding the life of the public is justifiable. The people have developed a popular culture based on the values that the leaders preach. To the average American, torture is not bad as long as it brings the desired results, that is, it helps protect the people against attacks such as the 9/11. These thoughts stand in contrast to previous views of the US regarding torture, in that before the attacks, respect for human dignity and rights was highly upheld by the leadership and people were highly critical of torture as a means of punishment (Gibney 2007). The US, prior to 9/11, was an active crusader of human rights and abided by the principles of international agreements such as Geneva Convention. However, after the attacks, it has deviated from these principles and indoctrinated the public on the importance of torture in curbing terrorism.
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. “Ideology.” Storey, John. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture – A Reader. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd, UK, 2006. 302-312. Print.
Freud, Sigmund and David McLintock. Civilization and its Discontents. London: Penguin, 2004. Print.
My Lai. Dir. Barrack Goodman. 2010. Film.
Taxi to the Dark Side. Dir. Alex Gibney. 2007. Film.
