Most of the commentary and coverage of the killings of at least 13
Vietnamese women and children by Bob Kerrey and his raiders focuses on
whether or not he rounded them up and murdered them or whether they were
killed in a battle in which Kerrey and his men were returning fire from
enemy soldiers. Most of the pundits jumped to Kerrey's defense and gave him
the benefit of the doubt putting forth excuses such as the fog of war,
unreliability of and conflicts between witnesses, passage of time, and the
trickiness of memory. The focus of commentators was: did he or didn't he:
did he commit a cold blooded war crime or were the killings excused by the
laws of war? I don't want to say this question is irrelevant, because it is
not. But whether Kerrey killed these peasants and their children by one
method or another is not the only question that his belated "confession"
raises.
Kerrey acknowledges that he and his men killed 13 mothers and children. He
states that the memories of it are "killing" him, that it was a "tragedy,"
that he could not "justify it militarily or morally" and that "he was so
ashamed he wanted to die." Many of the news reports sympathize with his
anguish and torment and the difficulty he is has had in coping with these
killings over the years. However, neither Kerrey nor these journalists
address the pain and loss suffered by the families of those he
killed--children raised without mothers, mothers who buried their children,
fathers without wives and children and families torn asunder. No one
including Kerrey addresses the anguish and pain of those families–its all
about how Kerrey is suffering. If Kerrey is really remorseful regarding the
killings–no matter which story is believed-- then he ought to do something
about it, not just give press interviews. He should find a way to both make
amends to the surviving relatives both in word and deed. This would be the
appropriate human, moral and ethical response. It is also what the
Vietnamese have suggested: "We think the best way for Mr. Kerrey as well as
other Americans who used to fight in Vietnam to find peace of mind is to
have concrete and realistic actions to contribute to healing the wounds left
by the war."
Kerrey can start small. He should go back to the village of Thanh Phong,
see for himself the damage he caused, go to the cemetery where those killed
are buried , meet with their families if they are willing–and, as a first
step– apologize. Real regret and real sorrow is expressed face to face not
at press conferences. He should not return empty handed to the village, but
should be prepared to assist those families and that village materially.
Expressions of real sorrow should be backed up with specific and material
actions. Kerrey is a millionaire many times over and while reparations will
not bring back the dead or end grieving, they will demonstrate both his
sincerity and willingness to help those he hurt.
But Kerrey's apology and return to the village should only be a beginning
of our country's acknowledgment for what we did in Vietnam. Kerrey unit's
killings took place in February 1969. The village of Thanh Phong is in Kien
Hoa Province in the Mekong Delta, the a focus of a U.S. "pacification"
campaign during the first six months of 1969–Kerrey's operation was part of
this campaign. In those six months, in that one area, a U.S. official
acknowledged that at least 5,000 noncombatant civilians were killed and this
is only a small number of the hundreds of thousands of noncombatant
civilians killed by the U.S. and its allies in the war.
Hopefully, if Kerrey takes the suggested return trip to Thanh Phong he will
set an example for other Americans and our government. It may herald the
beginning of a larger process of genuine acknowledgment, apology and
recompense for wrongs committed.
Michael Ratner is an international human rights attorney and the
vice-president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in NYC
###
Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
