Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective
eHistory Book Reviews
February Review:
Trotsky: A Biography
MultiMedia Histories
Featured History:
The Strike at Homestead

eHistory Archive Logo
THESE ARE ARCHIVED PAGES OF THE OLD EHISTORY SITE
click here for the NEW eHistory site
These pages are not actively maintained and may have errors in content and functionality
icon: the new eHistory
click to see our Origins feature click to see our Multimedia histories click to see our Book Reviews
Ancient History Middle Ages Civil War World War II Vietnam War Middle East World
      eHistory  >  Vietnam War Search


Page 345(Vietnamization & Redeployment)previous pagenext page


Krichten, had been in Vietnam only a month. None of these Marines, except Herrod, was considered profi­cient in night patrolling, although all had volunteered for the mission. Herrod, recently transferred from the 3d Marine Division, was awaiting court-martial for un­authorized absence. He was acting as team leader on this occasion because better qualified men were fa­tigued by days of continual combat.

January and February 1970 had been difficult months for Company B. The company had helped de­fend FSB Ross against the 6 January sapper attack. On 12 February, Company B had nine Marines killed in a well-executed enemy ambush. Weeks of day and night operations had brought the men close to exhaus­tion, and boobytrap casualties had compounded anger and frustration at the 12 February losses. The compa­ny commander, First Lieutenant Louis R. Ambort, a 23-year-old from Little Rock, Arkansas, reflected the tension in the unit in his instructions to Herrod's patrol. Ambort, according to subsequent accounts, ex­horted his men to "get some damned gooks tonight" and avenge the company's casualties. He gave the im­pression that age, sex, and military status were not to be taken into account, although the platoon sergeant made a point of warning Herrod before the patrol went out that the lieutenant really meant only enemy soldiers.

In the field, the "killer team" moved to the small hamlet of Son Thang (4),* about two miles southwest of Ross, inhabited by a group of known Viet Cong fa­milies. The people in Son Thang had refused both American and GVN offers of relocation to a safer area, preferring to stay near where their men were fight­ing. Under the rules of engagement for this area, night patrols could enter such hamlets to search for VC; this night, Herrod's team entered Son Thang (4). The Ma­rines went to a hut and called out the occupants, all women and children. One woman broke for a nearby treeline. The Marines shot her and then, allegedly at Herrod's command, gunned down the others. They went on to two more huts, ordered the inhabitants of each to come outside, and cut them down with small arms fire. In all, 16 Vietnamese—five women and 11 children—died that night in Son Thang (4).

Returning to the company position, the patrol reported a fight with 15-20 armed Viet Cong and claimed to have killed six.3 Lieutenant Ambort passed the report on to battalion and regiment. The next morning, another 1st Battalion patrol, acting on a report from Vietnamese civilians, found the bodies in Son Thang (4). When battalion headquarters challenged Ambort's initial report, the lieutenant at first stuck by it and produced an SKS, actually taken some time before, as a weapon captured in the nonex­istent fight. Later, he admitted that he had made a false action report. Information on the incident moved rapidly up the division chain of command. On 20 February, Major General Wheeler, the 1st Marine Di­vision commander, reported to III MAF that a "possi­ble serious incident" had occurred, involving elements of Company B and the civilians of Son Thang (4).4

The Son Thang (4) incident was not the first of its kind in the Vietnam conflict. In fact, in most earlier counterguerrilla campaigns, conducted by the Unit­ed States and other western and nonwestern nations, the butchery at the small hamlet would not have been viewed as unique. Even in the conventional and rela­tively gentlemanly American Civil War, Union com­manders summarily shot and hanged rebel bushwackers, burned towns and farms, and threatened retaliation against civilians for irregular acts of resistance. During his 1864 march through Georgia, General William T. Sherman ordered Confederate prisoners driven ahead of one of his columns to find or detonate enemy road mines. In the Philippines in 1901, Marine Lieutenant Colonel Littleton W. T. Waller was court-martialed for directing the execution of 11 treacherous native guides** Brutality charges, some of them valid, marred the pre-World War II Ma­rine occupation of Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Domini­can Republic.5 In Vietnam, such cruelties were no part of American policy. Nevertheless, the fear, rage, and frustration of battle against an evasive enemy, com­pounded often by deficient unit training and leader­ship, by individual personality defects, and by racial and cultural prejudice, led to isolated incidents of murder or abuse of prisoners and civilians and muti­lation of enemy dead.

* On American maps, this hamlet was named Thang "fay (1) and this name appeared in initial dispatches. Later everyone substituted Son Thang (4). which was the hamlet name used by Que Son Dis­trict authorities.

** Waller was acquitted. The entire court -martial, convened by the Army, later was ruled invalid, as Waller's Marines had not been for­mally assigned to Army command when the incident occurred.



Page 345(Vietnamization & Redeployment)previous pagenext page



About | Contact


All images and content are the property of eHistory at The Ohio State University unless otherwise stated.
Copyright © 2010 OSU Department of History. All rights reserved.