Lt. William Calley and the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam

[DonRocks]

I've always had a morbid fascination with Lt. William Calley's role in the My Lai Massacre in 1968 (that was one hell of a year for this country).

However, I've never really known about it, or what happened - I was only six years old, and didn't understand at all; I just remember "The Battle Hymn of Lt. Calley" playing on the radio - what sounded so serious to me then now comes across as propaganda, and not particularly well-done propaganda - it's almost kind of corny, even though it's dealing with such a dire subject.

Does anyone have any opinions about this anti-protest protest song? Or the situation in general? I'm not looking for general opinions about the war, but rather opinions about this specific situation.

Calley publicly apologized for the incident in 2009:

There is a 70-minute-long documentary on the My Lai massacre available on YouTube, but I haven't seen it yet - does anyone know if it's unbiased?

 

[DIShGo]

I remember learning about this in one of my college classes, and I found it fascinating. I don't even remember which class it was anymore, but it was an interesting study of the dark side of human behavior and group think. 

[Waitman]

From Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Starts about half way down the page that begins: "this is Doctor Gonzo in 850...."

[DonRocks]

On 10/16/2016 at 9:58 PM, DonRocks said:

There is a 70-minute-long documentary on the My Lai massacre available on YouTube, but I haven't seen it yet - does anyone know if it's unbiased?

I just watched this (see the first post above). It's *very* difficult to come away with either an "all guilty" or "all innocent" frame of mind after watching the entire video - it's well-worth 70 minutes of your time, and it may just make you look at things a little differently.

My opinion after watching the entire video, carefully: Our nation is primarily to blame. Calley is guilty of the same type of crimes as low-level Nazis, carrying out orders - I can easily see having an "On" switch flipped, without any good way to turn it back "Off." 

As much as I'd love to blame Calley, I think it would be a national-level cop-out to do so exclusively - we shouldn't have been there, and these kids sure as Hell shouldn't have been there without proper supervision or clear direction from above.

Specifics aside, this could make for an excellent psychological discussion on a human level: Nobody's hands are completely clean.

[DaveO]

The discussion about Con Thien elsewhere got me to look back at this.  As referenced in that discussion I was "of age" at that time, which in my case meant draft eligible but having a student deferment  (I vaguely recall the case went public in '69). 

So much relative to Vietnam was going on and my recollection of this incident and the focus on Calley is simply that it was part of a much bigger picture, with this being one of the highlight issues during its investigation and trial.  From my perspective as to Calley guilty or not....there is a big picture where the entire military if not the nation could be found guilty, but as our society works....usually some very very few take "the rap" and take all the blame.  Certainly that is true with Calley.

As to that song.  hmmm.   I believe it got most airplay on country music stations.  In my case I heard it a bit and never heard it again.  Guess I lived in the "wrong geography" to hear that song a lot.  Possibly it generated a lot of reaction...but in my geography it had zero impact.

Simply in terms of the polarization of the public then and now there are similarities.  Better or worse I couldn't say, but its similarly ugly and that is bad.

[Brian R]

I was not of that age, being less than one at the time.  As a former Army officer and helicopter pilot, however, I believe LT Calley was guilty as hell.   He was responsible for himself, his people, and his actions.  My former Military Law professor, who helped rewrite the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, trembled with rage on the day he lectured about My Lai.  This was quite a feat, as he had been mild mannered (boring) in his lecture style for weeks before.  

The culture of the Army when I was in during the early 90's pounded into us the notion we were responsible for our actions and orders, and we had a duty to not obey unlawful orders--but you better be damn sure they're unlawful!  "Following orders" is never an excuse for a war crime.

Rampaging infantry killing civilians in a war is quite common throughout history.  Americans did not (and still don't) view themselves that way, although that may be changing.  We're supposed to be the good guys.  What makes My Lai a far more interesting story is how people stood up to it at the time.  Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson and his crew, put his helicopter between LT Calley's platoon and some surviving women and children.  He even ordered his crew to fire on the American platoon if he was shot.  He reported everything to his superiors when he returned to base.  

The last of the surviving crew died last month.  

"Larry Colburn, Who Helped Stop My Lai Massacre, Dies at 67"  by Sam Roberts on nytimes.com

Yes, "the system" was a problem, and yes, everyone else got off easy.  That's no excuse.  

Maybe the documentary above deals with the aftermath, but remember this was covered up until Seymour Hersh broke the story.  CWO Thompson received death threats when he returned to his home in Georgia.  He expected to be court martialed at any time.  LT Calley was eventually pardoned, and I understand he apologized in 2009.

[DonRocks]

11 hours ago, Brian R said:

I was not of that age, being less than one at the time.  As a former Army officer and helicopter pilot, however, I believe LT Calley was guilty as hell.   He was responsible for himself, his people, and his actions.  My former Military Law professor, who helped rewrite the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, trembled with rage on the day he lectured about My Lai.  This was quite a feat, as he had been mild mannered (boring) in his lecture style for weeks before.  

The culture of the Army when I was in during the early 90's pounded into us the notion we were responsible for our actions and orders, and we had a duty to not obey unlawful orders--but you better be damn sure they're unlawful!  "Following orders" is never an excuse for a war crime.

Brian,

Welcome, and thank you for such a detailed, thoughtful post about Calley. One thing I want to stress to you, and all other new members, is that here on DR, my personal goal for the website (which I really think should be our motto) is "We don't argue to win; we discuss to learn." So, it's great to have the thoughts of a former soldier.

Cheers,
Rocks

[DaveO]

14 hours ago, Brian R said:

I was not of that age, being less than one at the time.  As a former Army officer and helicopter pilot, however, I believe LT Calley was guilty as hell.   He was responsible for himself, his people, and his actions.  My former Military Law professor, who helped rewrite the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, trembled with rage on the day he lectured about My Lai.  This was quite a feat, as he had been mild mannered (boring) in his lecture style for weeks before.  

Great post.  Thanks.  A perspective with depth, research, study, experience.  Certainly I didn't know anything about it till the story was broken by Hersh.  At this time its jumbled together with many memories of the period.  I don't need to make judgements.  Its reassuring to know that you studied it in depth.  Thanks for adding perspective.

[Brian R]

23 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Brian,

Welcome, and thank you for such a detailed, thoughtful post about Calley. One thing I want to stress to you, and all other new members, is that here on DR, my personal goal for the website (which I really think should be our motto) is "We don't argue to win; we discuss to learn." So, it's great to have the thoughts of a former soldier.

Cheers,
Rocks

13 hours ago, DaveO said:

Great post.  Thanks.  A perspective with depth, research, study, experience.  Certainly I didn't know anything about it till the story was broken by Hersh.  At this time its jumbled together with many memories of the period.  I don't need to make judgements.  Its reassuring to know that you studied it in depth.  Thanks for adding perspective.

DaveO --Thanks for the kind words

Don --Thanks for the reply.  Caution is always required when you are using Nazis in writing.  This is not what I thought my first few posts were going to be, and I apologize for the length again.  The history major in me was compelled, which I will try to resist in the future on posts that are, you know, related to dining, food, and eating.

So with that in mind, you asked me to expand on how LT Calley differed from a Nazi foot soldier.  I think a better comparison may be not LT Calley to a Nazi foot soldier, but to a Waffen SS or regular German field army officer.  Officer being the key.  

Officers are ultimately responsible for the decisions and orders they make.  Not that NCO's (sergeants and equivalent) don't make decisions they are responsible for, but it is the officer that is generally ultimately accountable for a unit.

That said, I'm not saying that LT Calley or the system he was in was like the Nazis.  The issue is that LT Calley used the same excuse as the Nazis - he just followed orders.

Other differences: 

The Waffen SS systematically trained its officers and men to obey and to execute orders without question through whatever means necessary.  They were the ultimate "means justify the ends" organization.  Promising boys from the Hitler Youth were recruited and trained into the SS.  An entire system was designed to follow and achieve orders in the service of the state and the Führer.  Boy Scouts were not and are not the Hitler Youth.  

Regular German field army officers were also products of the same national system, although not necessarily with the same fervent belief.  Take either kind, however, and graft them onto a superb staff officer corps and training system, and you have a very efficient and proficient military.  

In our military at that time, officers were volunteers, not draftees (initially).  In addition, after WWII, we viewed ourselves as the anti-Nazi (and especially anti-communist) forces for all good and freedom-loving people everywhere.  

Nazis viewed themselves as innately superior, and everyone else was lesser.  No one could be as good of a Nazi as a German, because, well, they were German and others were not.  Americans viewed themselves as better because of the system and the freedom, and if people followed our values and what we did, they could be better, too.  There was also more than a little racism in fighting an Asian enemy.  There was certainly misestimation of the Viet Cong's and North Vietnamese Army's capabilities.

Another difference in the base culture can be found in the oaths of office.  Every member of the Wehrmacht (the entire German armed forces - Army, Navy, and Air Forces) took an oath to obey, specifically, Hitler (the Führer) unto death.  Our military's oath is to defend the Constitution.  Some oaths, such as for enlisted folks, also require obeying the orders of the President and our chain of command.  Those oaths also include additional language that means that those orders must be in accordance with the laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Point is, ultimate allegiance is to the Constitution -- a set of ideas and laws, not a person or an individual office.  I should also note that every U.S. Federal government employee today takes essentially the same oath as commissioned officers do.

One of the (many) issues on the American side in Vietnam was that many of the senior officers still had a conventional war mindset borne of WWII.  What we really were fighting (at first) was a counterinsurgency.  This was something the Americans had not had to deal with since the Philippine Insurrection that began in 1899.  That conflict also witnessed incidents that we would consider war crimes today.  Our strategy in Vietnam was wrong (or simply did not work), even if our tactics enabled us to "win" individual battles.  Add the issues of not knowing who your enemy is, living in constant fear, desiring revenge for the comrades you lost, and yes, racism/dehumanization against your enemy, all contributed to a situation and a system where a logical result could end up with My Lai.  With a zero-defect culture, the need to be seen as "winning", and an inability to look critically at our own mistakes in the moment, and it's not a surprise that the system and chain of command chose to cover this up.

That said, there were far fewer My Lai type events by American forces than one would expect given the duration of the war and the situation, compared to incidents with other historical wars in general throughout history.  For an especially brutal, depressing, but enlightening read, try "Bloodlands", about the Eastern Front in WWII. You will never look at WWII uncritically as a "Good War" again.

I disagree that LT Calley was merely a pawn at the time of the action.  I think you can certainly make an argument that in the aftermath, when people were looking for a single person to blame instead of the system, he was a pawn.  I do agree he needed to make a decision quickly, as do many in a combat environment.  

But so did CWO Thompson.

In end, LT Calley was an individual capable of independent thought and decision making.  He swore an oath to defend the Constitution and its ideals.  Moral courage in the face of a system or circumstances can be difficult.  Civilization is a thin veneer that covers over the savages in all of us.  What a lot of people don't like to accept is that we all have the potential, given the right circumstances, to be the monsters we only imagine "others" can be.

Our society, our upbringing, our institutions, and our norms demand that we resist.  And ultimately, in the darkness or in the moment, by yourself, that's an individual decision only you can make.

And with that, I'm going to move on to other, less heavy topics, and with far fewer words.

[DonRocks]

4 hours ago, Brian R said:

And with that, I'm going to move on to other, less heavy topics, and with far fewer words.

No, I don't want you to. To me, "officer" means very little: a college graduate - any college graduate, correct? - can enter the Army as a Second Lieutenant and hence an "officer."

Okay, now, there is, I suppose, a difference between an 18-year-old draftee out of high school, and a 22-year-old enlisted officer with a college degree, but throw them into *that* situation, and how are they not one-and-the-same? A 22-year-old college graduate is a child, and just because they're called "Lieutenant" because they went through four more years of high school (plus keg parties) means nothing, other than that they're in a position of leading a Platoon - is this not correct? And snot-nosed Second Lieutenants are given less respect than the Sergeants they command.

Stop me here if I'm making false assumptions, but I could almost endlessly discuss how millions of "Nazis" didn't think they were "superior" - or, for that matter, have any clue what they were doing - any more than millions of 19-year-old kids looked down upon "Gooks" as being non-human (or, if they did, it's because they were told to). Well, you *did* say caution was required when mentioning "Nazis" in writing!  I think a "Nazi" can be defined as any German soldier from WWII, which accounts for literally millions of people, no? I used that term in context of it meaning "an entire nation of soldiers and the citizens who backed them," and not necessarily someone having any personal fondness of the "H-word."

I honestly don't believe this is a "military-only" conversation, but with that said, I have nothing but respect for the men and women in our military, and quite frankly, I value your opinion more than my own in this matter.

We'll always be primarily a "food website," but we're much more than that now, and the more you look, I hope the more you'll like what you see. Quite honestly, I've been waiting for some History majors to come along here and participate in this forum, just as I'm still waiting for English majors to come along and participate in our Literature Forum.

Thank you for such a thoughtful and detailed response - again. And yes, by all means, start posting about the correlation between Brussels Sprouts and Bouncing Bettys (or, "Balls of Death," as Waitman calls them - and I say this with respect and humor; not flippancy).

I also know it's sometimes not appropriate to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway: Thank you for your service, Brian.

Cheers,
Rocks

PS - I literally just woke up after sleeping two hours, and typed out this response in about fifteen minutes, so if there are any thoughtless errors, please take that into consideration - I know I'm treading on somewhat controversial ground here, but I believe education comes from thoughtful dialogue such as this, and I've been salivating, waiting for someone like you to step into this picture so we can all learn something. I'm a good website moderator, but I'm certainly no expert in the history of the Vietnam War. I want to also emphasize that my post here is written not to argue, but to learn - I'm hopeful that you'll give us even more valuable insight before moving on and discussing the culinary side of things.

PPS - I've had MREs and they truly do suck.

[porcupine]

On 1/19/2017 at 0:37 AM, DonRocks said:

I think a "Nazi" can be defined as any German soldier from WWII,

No. Absolutely not. Who knows how many soldiers are rolling in their graves over that statement? Do you believe every American soldier in the Vietnam war believed whole-heartedly in the cause? Of course not. They fought because they were compelled to. Same with Germans in WWII. There were plenty of conscripted men who fought because they had no choice, and they fought for their lives, their families, and their Germany, not because they believed the tenets of National Socialism. 

Go read A Higher Call. This is what the book is about, underneath the incredible story of a German pilot saving the crew of an American bomber.

[DonRocks]

4 hours ago, porcupine said:

No. Absolutely not. Who knows how many soldiers are rolling in the graves over that statement? Do you believe every American soldier in the Vietnam war believed whole-heartedly in the cause? Of course not. They fought because they were compelled to. Same with Germans in WWII. There were plenty of conscripted men who fought because they had no choice, and they fought for their lives, their families, and their Germany, not because they believed the tenets of National Socialism. 

Go read A Higher Call. This is what the book is about, underneath the incredible story of a German pilot saving the crew of an American bomber.

Then this is a simple matter of me having gone a lifetime misusing the term "Nazi" - I always equated it with Germany from 1933-1945; you're implying it's a system of beliefs (or probably more accurately, the political party). I guess it would make zero sense to call every German citizen a "Nazi," considering that so many of them were killed by the Nazi party - the fortunate thing is that I'm not sure I've ever really used the term in conversation before.

Thus, the fundamental (and dangerous) difference between "intelligence" and "knowledge." 

Well, that's about the most ignorant thing I've typed here in twelve years.  Going forward, I'll be *very* careful to limit usage to its proper meaning.

About ten years ago, I (innocently) misused the "Ret-word," and hillvalley reamed me a new one - I had no idea at the time that it had become such a derisive term (and I haven't used it since - there are now about 5-10 words that I simply don't use at all). This is different, because the "Naz-word," used properly, isn't derisive, but the trick is that it needs to be used properly.

[Brian R]

On 1/19/2017 at 0:37 AM, DonRocks said:

Okay, now, there is, I suppose, a difference between an 18-year-old draftee out of high school, and a 22-year-old enlisted officer with a college degree, but throw them into *that* situation, and how are they not one-and-the-same? A 22-year-old college graduate is a child, and just because they're called "Lieutenant" because they went through four more years of high school (plus keg parties) means nothing, other than that they're in a position of leading a Platoon - is this not correct? And snot-nosed Second Lieutenants are given less respect than the Sergeants they command.

Stop me here if I'm making false assumptions, but I could almost endlessly discuss how millions of "Nazis" didn't think they were "superior" - or, for that matter, have any clue what they were doing - any more than millions of 19-year-old kids looked down upon "Gooks" as being non-human (or, if they did, it's because they were told to). Well, you *did* say caution was required when mentioning "Nazis" in writing!  I think a "Nazi" can be defined as any German soldier from WWII, which accounts for literally millions of people, no? I used that term in context of it meaning "an entire nation of soldiers and the citizens who backed them," and not necessarily someone having any personal fondness of the "H-word."

OK, I can speak to the differences between officer and enlisted, as I was both.  I enlisted in the Virginia National Guard after my freshman year in college, so I was 19 when I left for 13 weeks of training that summer as a combat engineer, or as we called ourselves, "infantry with brains."  Build and blow up bridges, lay and blow up mine fields, etc.  Almost everyone in my training company were the same age, and had been through one year of college -- we were all reservists or Guard, not active duty.  Everyone was still from all over -- Puerto Rico, Mississippi, Kentucky, etc.  All that made a real difference in terms of discipline issues and maturity, because you had already been away from home - it was not the first time.  You had had to operate on your own, make good and bad decisions on your own, etc.  Not that you were an experienced "man about town" or exceptionally mature, but it made a clear difference.  Sister training companies in our battalion were made up of mostly 18 year old high school graduates who were going on to active duty, and there were far more discipline problems with individuals in those companies.

Training was also very different.  Basic training pounds into you repetitive actions that you can do without thinking.  The idea is that when you are bone tired, in strange place, everyone around you gone, you can still do your job.  To this day I can still strip down and put together an M-16 rifle blindfolded.  I still know to pinch a big toe for blood circulation after putting on a leg splint for a broken leg.

After returning to Virginia and my home unit, I quickly learned that officers were just as dirty and wet, but were paid more.  I did not originally consider active duty, because in my mind I was going to be a PhD in Marine Biology, thanks to the Jacques Cousteau specials I watched.  My GPA took a big hit for the long time it took me to accept reality.  In the meantime, I joined ROTC, but not on a scholarship.

Officer training is different.  You are trained in how to lead people, psychology, military history, military law, etc.  It's also competitive.  You are evaluated and ranked, and that makes a big difference if you are assigned to active duty versus guard or reserve.  It also makes a difference in what branch of the Army you will be an officer.  ROTC training culminated in a summer camp where 10% of the cadets were forced ranked as top, another 20% in the second tier, then everyone else. ROTC at the time of the Vietnam was somewhat similar, according to my dad who did two tours and stayed in for 20 years.

So jokes about lieutenants saying, "I've been thinking...." have been around since, well lieutenants.  Good ones do rely on their senior NCO's to help and guide them.  But they are in charge, and they are responsible.  There were, and are, good ones out there.  I'm not sure what the alternative is, as war is inherently a young person's game.

As to the Nazis:  You were officially a Nazi if you were a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.  Which many were, as that was a stepping stone to the right schools, government and military positions, and business contracts.  Some estimates were that about 10 percent of Germans were official members.  So of course many more were not.  Obviously, Nazi was used by the Allies as shorthand for all Germans, but it's not like there were significant competing viewpoints in the government or industry there.  Allied forces also differentiated between Waffen SS forces and regular Wehrmacht forces. The SS were the "true believers."  Propaganda, fear, a Depression, and national pride all combined to create a populace that elected them to office (after intimidating and then later eliminating the opposition), and acquiesced to a national expansion.  Hitler was beloved by many Germans, especially in the middle class, and was nicknamed "the people's Chancellor."  And he was hated by a small minority, many of whom were eliminated with efficiency.  There's a reason the Allies divided Germany, and Germany itself undertook a very long term, serious, painful, and honestly, unique evaluation of its collective responsibility during the war.

And again, there's nothing inherently German about how this came about.  Any group of human beings are potentially capable of the same thing.  See the Bosnian War or Rwanda for recent examples how quickly neighbors that had lived with each other for generations quickly turned on each other.  Or even the Stanford Prison Experiment where regular, perfectly nice people like you and me happily became sadistic prison guards.  And of course Abu Ghraib.

That's the scary part -- as humans, we are all capable of doing the same thing.  

As to MRE's:  2,600 calories of wholesome goodness per meal, with the side effect equivalent of taking Imodium for days.  It was a happy day when MRE's began coming with their own mini-bottles of Tabasco Sauce to improve the flavor.  Hunger also improves the taste of almost anything.

 

[porcupine]

16 minutes ago, DonRocks said:

Then this is a simple matter of me having gone a lifetime misusing the term "Nazi" - I always equated it with Germany from 1933-1945; you're implying it's a system of beliefs (or probably more accurately, the political party). I guess it would make zero sense to call every German citizen a "Nazi," considering that so many of them were killed by the Nazi party - the fortunate thing is that I'm not sure I've ever really used the term in conversation before.

Thus, the fundamental (and dangerous) difference between "intelligence" and "knowledge." 

Well, that's about the most ignorant thing I've typed here in twelve years. 

Forgive me: I am not an expert in this subject. But A Higher Call had a profound influence on me. In his introduction to the book, Adam Makos explains how he had always conflated WWII-era Germans with Nazis, until he met Charlie Brown (pilot of the American bomber), who told him "In this story, I'm just a character --Franz Stigler [pilot of the Messerschmitt] is the real hero." When Makos talked with Stigler, he learned the difference. The book is largely about Stigler's service, as it needs to be for us to understand why he did what he did (an act of treason). 

I didn't mean to hijack this thread, for that I apologize. People need to be a little more careful about throwing pejoratives like "Nazi" around.

"Nazi" does not mean "WWII-era German" any more than "2017 American" means "conservative T-word supporter".

[DonRocks]

3 hours ago, porcupine said:

I didn't mean to hijack this thread, for that I apologize. People need to be a little more careful about throwing pejoratives like "Nazi" around.

You didn't hijack it - you were correct in correcting me.

The good news is that it's still 5:30 AM where I am, and I get to go back to sleep for a few more hours and forget I typed something so dumb.

3 hours ago, Brian R said:

As to MRE's:  2,600 calories of wholesome goodness per meal, with the side effect equivalent of taking Imodium for days.  It was a happy day when MRE's began coming with their own mini-bottles of Tabasco Sauce to improve the flavor.  Hunger also improves the taste of almost anything.

I have a little bottle of that Tabasco Sauce saved.  And thank you for another *great* post.

[DonRocks]

On 1/19/2017 at 8:17 AM, Brian R said:

OK, I can speak to the differences between officer and enlisted, as I was both.  I enlisted in the Virginia National Guard after my freshman year in college, so I was 19 when I left for 13 weeks of training that summer as a combat engineer, or as we called ourselves, "infantry with brains."  Build and blow up bridges, lay and blow up mine fields, etc.  Almost everyone in my training company were the same age, and had been through one year of college -- we were all reservists or Guard, not active duty.  Everyone was still from all over -- Puerto Rico, Mississippi, Kentucky, etc.  All that made a real difference in terms of discipline issues and maturity, because you had already been away from home - it was not the first time.  You had had to operate on your own, make good and bad decisions on your own, etc.  Not that you were an experienced "man about town" or exceptionally mature, but it made a clear difference.  Sister training companies in our battalion were made up of mostly 18 year old high school graduates who were going on to active duty, and there were far more discipline problems with individuals in those companies.

Training was also very different.  Basic training pounds into you repetitive actions that you can do without thinking.  The idea is that when you are bone tired, in strange place, everyone around you gone, you can still do your job.  To this day I can still strip down and put together an M-16 rifle blindfolded.  I still know to pinch a big toe for blood circulation after putting on a leg splint for a broken leg.

After returning to Virginia and my home unit, I quickly learned that officers were just as dirty and wet, but were paid more.  I did not originally consider active duty, because in my mind I was going to be a PhD in Marine Biology, thanks to the Jacques Cousteau specials I watched.  My GPA took a big hit for the long time it took me to accept reality.  In the meantime, I joined ROTC, but not on a scholarship.

Officer training is different.  You are trained in how to lead people, psychology, military history, military law, etc.  It's also competitive.  You are evaluated and ranked, and that makes a big difference if you are assigned to active duty versus guard or reserve.  It also makes a difference in what branch of the Army you will be an officer.  ROTC training culminated in a summer camp where 10% of the cadets were forced ranked as top, another 20% in the second tier, then everyone else. ROTC at the time of the Vietnam was somewhat similar, according to my dad who did two tours and stayed in for 20 years.

So jokes about lieutenants saying, "I've been thinking...." have been around since, well lieutenants.  Good ones do rely on their senior NCO's to help and guide them.  But they are in charge, and they are responsible.  There were, and are, good ones out there.  I'm not sure what the alternative is, as war is inherently a young person's game.

I thought about this post just now while watching "Fort Apache" (which I will link to when I'm finished watching and posting). The set-up: The father, a seasoned, highly respected Sergeant-Major, hasn't seen his son, now a Second-Lieutenant, in four years. They meet, greet, and the father leaves his son with his mom before asking to be excused to go to a party, getting that permission, then saluting his son. And then, father smacks son in the gut, as a subtle reminder of who's really the boss! Look at all seven pictures in sequence (clicking on the first picture, and then using the right-arrow on the right side of the screen to advance through all seven) - it's a pretty funny moment in the film, but I think this sequence belongs here.

The second time through, look at the expressions on the proud and delighted mother's face.