t find a way to deal with both. Common sense leads one to deduce that if causes are extreme the results should be expected, too, to be extreme.Another viewpoint is that from the commanding officers. If Lt. Calley really was responsible for the My Lai happenings, one must wonder why he wanted it to happen. Perhaps the officer was simply fed up with the war situation. He may have been tires of having responsibility for not only himself, but for all the soldiers he commanded. Not knowing the enemy from the ally could cause a situation like the "fish in water" tactic. This method, which was used highly as a rationalization, stated that one way to be sure to catch a fish would be to eliminate the water, just as a method killing "Charlie" would be to kill all Vietnamese. It can also be said, however, that the commanding officer isn't to blame, but his commanders are. Not being in the war could lead to a sense of "dehumanization" towards the Vietnamese, so it becomes easier to order a massacre from Washington than to become part of one in Vietnam. One must also remember, however, that the highest rank in the army is the President, and the citizens are directly responsible for whom this may be.Through this research, it has been proven that because of events such the My Lai massacre in Vietnam there were certainly psychological changes in those involved. Today's writers too often get caught up in what the media wants the people to believe. The only way to aquire pure, unedited information is to speak personally to someone who has experienced events such as the one mentioned. No matter what their view of the war is, when asked if war will change a person the most common response will be "Nobody ever returns the same" (Knowll, 127) (Mahan Interview). With the certainty of scarring evident, one must begin to question why this scarring happens and why people have a threshold for violence. The most obvious and most correct response is that war wasn't...
