While discussing My Lai (http://video.pbs.org/video/1475790127/) , we talked about how we may sympathize with the context in which the soldiers were and understand how one might come to behave outside the realms of normal, civilized behavior; indeed, we might even empathize with the soldiers; however, according to the decision of the Peers Commission (a military investigation into the massacre and cover up), there are dangers to a society, especially in the context of war when so much is chaotic and without rules, if systems do not adhere to the rules of engagement that they have agreed to follow. The Fourth Geneva Convention, for instance, speaks to the protection of noncombatants and the rejection of “total war,†in which combatants and non-combatants are killed indiscriminately. To quote Larry Coburn, there is a difference between killing in war and murder.
How did it come to be that the actions of some of the soldiers at My Lai rose to the level that it did? The documentarian, for instance, argues that a fundamental breakdown in structures of authority led to the disastrous behaviors.
In your essay, explain how Freud (Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud) and Althusser (Ideology) would analyze the behaviors of the soldiers, senior officers, and U.S. public. Why do some soldiers behave differently than others, Thompson or Maples as opposed to Calley or Meadlo? Why do some senior officers react differently than others, Peers as opposed to Henderson? Why do the U.S. and civilian leadership rise up to reject the military tribunal’s decision to prosecute and incarcerate Calley and others? What can we learn from these differences? What do you think, keeping in mind that all our thoughts are tentative and may change; in other words, you are allowed to stake out some potential thoughts you have as you are working through the complexities of the issues.
2. In the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XWerXHS893U ) According to Alex Gibney, how does 9/11 function as a moment of cultural shock that inflects all aspects of U.S. engagement with the world, particularly represented in the mystification of the definition of “torture,†which allowed for the practices at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? How might Foucault and Barthes consider the impact of 9/11 on the U.S.? Finally, how do the various systems (civilian leadership and U.S. popular culture) play a role in creating the broader U.S. understanding of torture? How do these thoughts stand in contrast with the previous practice of the U.S. in regards to torture—setting a standard higher than international agreements on torture the 150 years previous to 9/11? What do you think, keeping in mind that all our thoughts are tentative and may change; in other wor
