While it does not in any way excuse illegal hostile actions against non-combatants, it does illustrate that one of the purposes of having rules for war is, precisely, to avoid some of the consequences that are readily foreseeable when either side violates them. In many cases, North Vietnamese civilians were directly involved in supporting the war effort. Frequently, combatants disguised themselves by day as civilians and then attacked U.S. forces at night. In other cases, civilians helped lure U.S. soldiers into ambushes and booby traps. While even that does not excuse retaliating against (other) civilians or attacking the entire village in retaliation, it does illustrate that violating the rules of war by one side is likely to provoke hostile responses in kind. That is simply human nature and it is one of the many reasons that both sides in any conflict should always respect the rules of warfare.

Historical Examples of Violations of the Rules of War in Larger Perspective

World War two also featured numerous examples of fundamental violations of the most basic rules of warfare. The Nazis, in particular, had absolutely no respect for civilian populations and frequently murdered entire villages, such as in retaliation for partisan attacks against their forces. Of course, their systematic murder of millions of civilians in occupied territories were the most horrific and extensive crimes against humanity ever committed in human warfare. The Nazis also sometimes executed captured prisoners and also donned captured uniforms to infiltrate Allied front lines. The Japanese...

The infamous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 was also a fundamental violation of the rules of war because it preceded any formal declaration of war.
While the U.S. never committed wide-scale or systematic violations of the rules of war in Vietnam such as by sanctioning intentional attacks on civilians, it did violate other rules such as by crossing into Laos and by assigning U.S. pilots to fly (illegally) in Laos in aircraft marked with the insignia of the Laotian armed forces. In principle, no violation of the rules of warfare is ever justified. However, in a realistic sense, it is understandable how certain choices to do so for strategic and tactical reasons (although never purely for retaliatory reasons) when the enemy is willing to exploit the fact that one side is attempting to respect the accepted rules of warfare. "Ideally," neither side should ever violate the rules of warfare; then again, in an ideal world, there would be no wars in the first place.

Sources Consulted

Goldfield, D., Abbot, C., Argersinger, J., and Argersinger, P. (2005). Twentieth-Century

America: A Social and Political History. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-

Prentice Hall.

McNamara, R. (1995) In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. New York:

Random House.

Roberts, P. (2000). The Cold War. Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton.