The El Mozote Massacre Brian Leung and Joe DaSilva Short Description The Salvadoran Civil War was

a conflict in El Salvador fought by the military-led government of El Salvador and the Farabundo Mart National Liberation Front (FMLN), a group of umbrella left wing militias that utilized guerilla tactics. Carried out by the Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran Army, the El Mozote Massacre was an anti-guerilla campaign that got out of hand in the town of El Mozote and saw the killing of at least 200 and up to 1000 civilians. On December 10th, 1981, the Atlacatl, which had been trained by U.S. military, entered the village of El Mozote to commence Operacon Rscate, which had the goal of eliminating rebel presence in a small region of northern Morazn where the FMLN had a camp and a training center. Upon arrival, the soldiers ordered all the towns citizens to lock themselves in their houses and warned them that anyone who went outside would be shot. The next day, the soldiers separated men, women, and children and locked them in separate buildings. The soldiers then proceeded to interrogate, torture, and execute the men. The women were raped and then machine-gunned while the children were killed in similar fashion. After killing the entire population, the soldiers set fire to all the buildings. The dead were left unburied and were observed by all who passed by. Why was violence used and why did people take part in it? The government of El Salvador rightfully viewed the FMLN as a serious threat and conducted counterinsurgency operations with hopes of eliminating potential hazards. So, violence was used from the governments perspective to prevent an overthrowing of the regime while the Atlacatl Battalion used violence for those reasons with ulterior motives being a possibility as well. The government was also likely influenced by a paranoid anticommunist ideology spread by the United States, which justified any and all methods to defeat the enemy. It is difficult to pinpoint the reasons for why each soldier took part in the massacre. Some may have been simply following orders and accidentally took the mission of Operacon Rscate too seriously. Others may have been less politically motivated and based their decision on the utility they received from being a part of a group (Abrahms and social solidarity). Lastly, this could be an instance of war rage where the actors acted irrationally. Did it achieve its purpose and were there other means available to achieve the political end? The massacre did not achieve its purpose. The FMLN continued to gain power and grow following 1981 and actually launched it largest offensive in 1989. The massacre did deter other villages from harboring insurgents but that did little to stop the guerilla organization from developing. In the long run it actually protracted the war by paving the way for the Reagan administration to pay more attention to human rights issues. There were certainly others means to achieve this end. In the end, no known members of the FMLN were killed. But, is this a risk that the military is willing to take? On one hand, it is important to adhere to human rights regulations, but it is just as crucial to reach the political end. The problem with this situation was that although there were alternative means available to reach the

end, those means were proportional to the ends. This is why the violence cannot be justified during or after the war. Was the violence organized? The violence was highly organized. Previous clashes between security forces and murdersquad members were almost completely spur-of-the-moment decisions following battles and losses on the side of the government. However, Operacon Rscate was a meticulously planned operation of tierra assada (scorched earth). The basic premise was that the Atlacatl Battalion would destroy civilian support for the FMLN thereby stranding them in the forests of Morazn. The Atlacatl Battalion was specifically chosen because it was the first immediate-reaction infantry battalion armed and trained by the United States. The battalions five companies landed in Perqun, north of El Mozote, and marched south towards La Guacamaya, an FMLN command post. As they marched south, Atlacatl companies broke off to pursue various objectives. During the march helicopters bombed the hillsides to soften up the area. When Atlacatl battalions arrived at a new village, all the inhabitants would be assembled in the central plaza for questioning and varying portions of the population would be executed. Once the killing commenced in El Mozote, it was conducted in a highly organized manner. Men, women, and children were locked in the church and various houses. The men were superficially interrogated then systematically killed. At first they were decapitated one by one, but seeing as this was too tiresome, they were led outside and forced to lie on the ground face down. They were then shot in the back of the head. The women and children were killed in a similar manner, but many of the women were raped for 12-18 hours beforehand. Could anyone have prevented this violence? It is likely that the only way this violence could have been prevented would have been for the government to pursue a different strategy. There was a sentiment among numerous Atlacatl soldiers that they would be killed themselves if they didnt fulfill their orders. The FMLN had showed a remarkable capacity for collective planning and action in the past and thus represented a significant threat to the government. The FMLN also had the support of a significant portion of the civilian population. Through the course of the conflict the government had shown little hesitance in targeting civilians. This was likely caused by the United States insistence that any tactic could be considered legitimate to combat a communist threat. Questions What alternative methods could the Salvadoran government have used to counter the threat of the rebels? Could the FMLN been stopped without the use of repressive methods? How does this reading relate to this weeks readings? Can we interpret the Massacre at El Mozote in the framework of Gurrs argument? Can you think of any ways in which the violence inficted at El Mozote can be justified? Can and should this be viewed as irrational?