tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68672488770013421472024-03-05T01:43:01.516-06:00Consilient InductionsConsilient: the concurrence of multiple inductions drawn from different data sets.
Induction: the process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
Concurrence: agreement.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.comBlogger209125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-60418753506729834872012-07-07T10:08:00.002-05:002012-07-07T10:08:26.389-05:00If not me, then who?“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” (<span id="goog_784177991"></span><a href="http://www.ijs.org.au/Hillel-the-Elder/default.aspx">Ethics of the<span id="goog_447373470"></span><span id="goog_447373471"></span> Fathers 1.14</a><span id="goog_784177992"></span>)<br />
<br />
These last few post have been looking at Marco Rubio's contention that the only out of our (U.S.) current fiscal problems is through growth. When he says "only" he means only. Nothing but growth, so any movement by government to generate revenue to reduce the deficit and pay down our debt is off the table if it has any chance of impacting growth.<br />
<br />
According to Rubio, we need to leave the money in the economy (keep taxes where they are) so that it will be invested back in the economy creating growth and thereby creating new and better tax payers which will provide the government the revenue it needs.<br />
<br />
I contend that this theory, though sound and plausible, will not work because the money that is not taxed and would be received as revenue is not put back into the economy where it creates these new and better tax payers.<br />
<br />
Case in point is how Mitt Romney invests his money.<br />
<br />
When I asked the question: How many jobs did Mitt Romney's $5.46 million that he got to keep because he paid 15% and not 39% taxes create, it was not to poke fun at him or paint him in a bad light. It is simply to point out a fact, that is, investment is predominately designed to increase the wealth of the individual, not to create jobs. That's the model used. that's the model Bain Capital uses. That's the reality in play and the reason Rubio's "growth only" model will not work.<br />
<br />
It can't work because guys like Romney invest their money in ways that benefit them. Heck, for the most part, we all do it. <br />
<br />
So if a fiscal policy advocated by Rubio of "growth only" and no taxes - which is pretty much held in lock-step regard by the Republican party - is dependent on investment by "job creators" like Romney, and guys like Romney are not investing in things that create new and better tax payers, how valid is Rubio's idea?<br />
<br />
It's not valid. Not because it's not a sound theory or plausible, but because in reality it is not happening. Rubio's theory is completely dependent on guys like Mitt Romney investing in things that will create more and better tax payers. Romney, on the other hand, invests in things that bring in the highest return for him and his family.<br />
<br />
Rubio's "growth only" could work but only if we force that revenue they keep be invested in projects that create American jobs. The reality is this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.2 percent, the Labor Department said in its report Friday. (<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=156363770">1</a>)</blockquote>
Reality shows that since the lower taxes put in places by Bush, as well as an environment under a Republican President and Republican Congress, investment by guys like Romney has not generated the necessary jobs needed by the Rubio model to generate the revenue we need to run our government.<br />
<br />
If it seems like I am beating a dead horse with this, I am. If a model does not produce the results you need then the model is wrong regardless of the theory or soundness behind it. Reality shows over and over again that the "job creators" are not creating the jobs we need. They are "job creators" only in the sense that the theory of "growth only" makes them so. <br />
<br />
In reality, guys like Romney are nothing more than investors. If one thinks they create jobs with their wealth then you are fooling yourself. Their wealth creates jobs only when it benefits them. In a way, it would be like calling yourself a "philanthropist" because once and a while you drop change in the Salvation Army bucket at Christmas.<br />
<br />
So why beat this dead horse? Because it is the predominant Republican model for how to achieve the revenue to decrease the deficit and pay down our debt. It is a model that relies on guys like Romney. And we know how guys like Romney behave. They do what is in their best interest, and right now, a 15% tax rate is what benefits them.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to this question: Is it Romney and his rich cohorts responsibility to create American jobs with the money they keep because we let them pay lower taxes because we want them to invest?<br />
<br />
If it is not Romney's responsibility to take that $5.46 million extra money he got to keep because he is a "job creator" and is taxed at a lower rate than everyone else, to create new and better tax payers, who's job is it?<br />
<br />
If the private sector won't do it. And the guy that wants to be our president isn't doing it, then who will produce the revenue we need to run our government and pay down our debt? Where will it come from if it is not going to come from new and better tax payers that Rubio stresses will materialize from a "growth only" model?<br />
<br />
Growth only will not work because guys like Romney do not spend their money on projects that create new and better tax payers. It does not work that way even though, in theory, it should. Romney does not spend his money that way and neither does the rest of the "job creators."<br />
<br />
If they won't then Rubio's model will not work and a different approach is needed to bridge the gap between what we need in revenue and what we currently bring in. Rubio needs to change his tune because he is the rising star within the Republican Party. As long as he sings the "growth only" song, the others will sing from that same songbook.<br />
<br />
If you want "growth only" then guys like Romney need to be punished when their investments do not generate new and better tax payers. Or, we admit that it is not guys like Romney's responsibility to create jobs for Americans and stop calling them "job creators" and tax them at a rate necessary to bring in the revenue we need to run our government and pay down our debt.<br />
<br />
"Now, who is going to bake this bread?" asked the little red hen.<br />
<br />
"Not I", said the cat.<br />
"Not I", said the duck.<br />
<br />
<br />
If not Romney, who?<br />
<br />
<br />
Next Post: How smart is a guy who does not see this reality?<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-71218330431543503612012-07-04T09:52:00.001-05:002012-07-06T08:33:57.436-05:00Does $5.46 million invested in Bain Capital create new tax payers?Under Marco Rubio's premise that growth is the "only" viable course of action for deficit and debt. The Rubio model, if I understand it correctly from his <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/415858/playlist_tds_extended_marco_rubio/415834">interview</a> with Jon Stewart, is based on the idea that keeping money in the hands of the citizen will lead to investment which will lead to more tax payers.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The government will generate more revenue and that revenue will be used to pay down the deficit."</blockquote>
That, in a nut shell, is his belief. That, in a nut shell, is the Republican's economic model. Not $10 in cuts for $1 in tax. Nothing of the sort other than leave the "job creators" alone and let the money roll in to the government from their investments.<br />
<br />
In theory, that seems plausible, but in reality it does not work that way.<br />
<br />
Here is why. Let's look at the reality of the right now. If lower taxes mean more investment which creates new and better jobs for Americans, then the money that has been taxed at this lower rate should currently be used to create new jobs. If that is how the Rubio model is supposed to work, then that is indeed what we should be seeing, you know, the reality.<br />
<br />
If the Rubio model is valid and will work to pay down our deficit and debt, then the actions by those who are taxed the lowest, the ones who invest - the "job creators" - should be dumping that untaxed money - their lower taxed income they get to keep because they pay 15% and not 36% or 39% - into the economy and a net increase of new tax payers should be the reality we see.<br />
<br />
Is it?<br />
<br />
Here is, instead, what the reality is that we currently see. If Mitt Romney, a guy who wants to lead us and will put the Rubio model into play, benefits from a decrease in his tax burden under the guise that he is a "job creator" then shouldn't his actions - the reality - show us the benefits in the form of new tax payers?<br />
<br />
I'll get to the question on if it is the responsibility of guys like Mitt Romney to create jobs in a later post. Right now I am trying to see if the Rubio model is valid.<br />
<br />
What were the actions - reality - of Mitt Romney? If he is a job creator and needs to be unhindered with any additional responsibility for our country's current and former bills so that he will invest. And if that investment is the keystone of the Rubio economic model for creating new tax payers which will "generate more revenue and that revenue will be used to pay down the deficit," do the actions match the rhetoric?<br />
<br />
Here is what columnist John Young has to <a href="http://johnyoungcolumn.blogspot.com/2012/06/mitt-romney-job-killer.html">say</a> about Romney's investments and how they relate to job creation. It is titled "Mitt Romney: Job Killer." That does not sound to promising if guys like Mitt Romney are needed to make the Rubio model work. Remember, Rubio states numerous times in the interview that growth is the only way. When asked by Stewart how that will take care of the deficit and debt, Rubio responds that investment creates new tax payers. "Tax increases don't generate growth," Rubio states. "If you leave it in the economy they will use it."<br />
<br />
Here is the question I would ask Rubio. Use it how? Not theoretical, but in reality. We are coming to a point where two competing goals are coming into play. Does Romney's investments need to produce jobs to make the Rubio model work, or does Romney's investments need to generate growth for himself?<br />
<br />
This is not an argument on greed, although an argument as to how much we owe our fellow citizens could be made, that's not what I want to look at in terms of the validity of running a government predicated on the idea of needed revenue from "growth only" which is dependent on investment that creates new tax payers which leads to more revenue for their taxed income.<br />
<br />
Here is how a guy like Romney invested his money. According to John Young:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For better (investors) or ill (your neighbors), Romney's company, Bain Capital, was absolutely a huge player in employing the fine people of India. Now, we all know that outsourcing boosts corporate profits, and lowers prices for services or products. Of course, the same can be said for illegal immigration. It's all part of the "global economy" to which we are all shackled.</blockquote>
This is a reality. Investing in India was good for Bain Capital but it did not create any new tax payers needed for the missing revenue we need here. Doonsbury also brings up this issue in today's <a href="http://doonesbury.slate.com/strip/">comic</a>. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH6SEAoWKfoQtnFUm1BKmMhJRNMwIu1IkqnSXg15z9OtD8smWgkVOumzN10JpKvuLgz7ZCq5q5fDwl88-8uN_5mEdNLVCCVJwhwTJN_QZnh-AW2nJPKX9UkoXccuMrP13UapfrVBs-JBLK/s1600/c6c62da0a2d7012f2fe800163e41dd5b+(1).gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH6SEAoWKfoQtnFUm1BKmMhJRNMwIu1IkqnSXg15z9OtD8smWgkVOumzN10JpKvuLgz7ZCq5q5fDwl88-8uN_5mEdNLVCCVJwhwTJN_QZnh-AW2nJPKX9UkoXccuMrP13UapfrVBs-JBLK/s640/c6c62da0a2d7012f2fe800163e41dd5b+(1).gif" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This is where the competing interests collide and why the Rubio model of "growth only" will not work. What is good for the investor is paramount in the current US model. Here is another problem on why untaxed money is not used for growth that creates new tax payers:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
One thing to say about the type of business that made Romney drip with wealth while so many tread water, is that it reflects an economy whose course is increasingly difficult to change. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Take big-box retailers. Bain Capital is credited with helping office-supply giant Staples, among others, get through rough times. Retailing behemoths are a way of life for Americans today. At the same time, they arguably are the biggest reason why the U.S. economy is so hard to steer anew when things go awry. Our nation has much bigger, and much fewer, retail employers than in previous generations.</blockquote>
What's the problem with that? How does this void Rubio's "growth only" model? According to John young:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Two massive factors — outsourcing and oppressive big-ness — tie policymakers' hands when they try to do something about the economy. And both factors have made a lot of money for a few in the moneyed — Romney-ed — set.</blockquote>
If the "lot of money" is going to folks who we will need to depend on to make a growth only model for government tax revenue work, then these folks will need to change their current business model to stop outsourcing and employee more Americans. And what is the chance of that happening? It's not greed as much as it is this reality of thinking: I am willing to do only so much for those around me, after that, you are on your own and my responsibility ends.<br />
<br />
So if I am willing to do X and X + 5 is needed, where does the +5 come from? It's not coming from guys like Romney = guys we call the "job creators." He is a beneficiary of a system that is stalked in his favor at the expense of others. Did Romney invest that $5.46 million in activities that helped his country or helped himself? We know how Bain Capital made its money and we also know Romney put his money into the Cayman Islands.<br />
<br />
Now it gets tricky. If we accept that it is perfectly okay for Romney to do what he wants to with the money he legally made, that what he is required to pay in taxes is all he must do, then the Rubio model will not work because it is dependent on Romney investing what is not taken as a tax into activities that generate new American tax payers. And that, looking at Bain Capital's business model, is contrary to what generates wealth for their investors.<br />
<br />
Rubio and Romney believes that the current tax structure is adequate and that he has done all he is required to do. Romney's obligations to the US have been met:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.” (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-returns/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html">1</a>)</blockquote>
"Legally required" and "not a dollar more" are perfectly fine for the individual, but we have a country where the individual's fellow citizens are not doing well. We have a country who cannot meets it current obligations - deficit - and keeps piling up more and more debt, whose interest payments go to guys like Romney and China. Romney and his cohorts pay only X when X+5 is required. Rubio will accept no other model that may require guys like Romney to pay more than X. If that - tax increase - is off the table how do we address our problems if the dependent variable - the Mitt Romney "job creators"- are not investing their money in areas that create American Jobs which creates American tax payers to produce the revenue we need? Phew! Out of breath on that one...<br />
<br />
The question I would ask Rubio is: What if guys like Ronmey don't - or will not - invest their untaxed money into growth that creates new American tax payers? Should we force Romeny to only invest in projects that generate new American jobs?<br />
<br />
If it is not Romney's responsibility to "pay one dollar more" and it is not the responsibility of Romney to invest in companies that create American tax payers, who's responsibility is it to get the government the +5 it needs? The reason we have such a problem is because of the business model guys like Romney use to generate their personal wealth and the power they hold to create laws and policies that benefit them personally. They have no further obligation, as in "not a dollar more." <br />
<br />
And yet Rubio believes that these guys are the way out of our mess if we just leave them be and "close the loopholes." Romney wants to become president and control an economy that he has benefited from and sees no reason to change. That's like the wolf guarding the hen house:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
While the U.S. government tries to balance its books, offshore corporations and people with the means of sheltering their wealth deprive the Treasury of those dollars, though they benefit from the "land of the free" in every way. (<a href="http://johnyoungcolumn.blogspot.com/2012/06/mitt-romney-job-killer.html">2</a>)</blockquote>
Rubio will accept no tax increase on guys like Romney believing them to be the job creators needed for the "only growth" model to succeed. Yet the deficit grows and the debt grows, and guys like Romney grow richer at the expense of their fellow citizens. <br />
<br />
If Romney is not investing in endeavors that generate new American tax payers, why would we expect any of his cohorts to be doing the same?<br />
<br />
So who does have the obligation to pay down the deficit and the debt? If not Romney, who?<br />
<br />
Next post: If not me, then who?<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-25336930313229399632012-07-03T07:50:00.000-05:002012-07-03T07:50:41.706-05:00Does Mitt Romney's income come from investments that help Americans?In my last two posts I have been exploring Marco Rubios <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/415858/playlist_tds_extended_marco_rubio/415834">contention</a> that the <i><b><u>only</u></b></i> way out of our current US fiscal predicament is through growth. And to get that growth me must not increase taxes on those the Republicans commonly refer to as "job creators" - as in guys like Mitt Romney.<br />
<br />
Marco Rubio wants to get the government the revenue it needs through growth that creates new tax payers. That growth comes from those folks that have the money to invest. The more money they are allowed to keep from lower taxes, the more investment they will make and the more growth we will have creating more tax payers thereby more income for the government. Win-win-win-win. Wins all around!<br />
<br />
This theory, a similar type of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics">trickle down economics</a>" ideology, is predicated on the actions of those that currently hold the bulk of the available money in our society, those often referred to as the "one precenters."<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5AeILO3-KuhSmDJeMA1Z0xO7_p2p3iVZcRZ-A4x5GJODguH34JLXR9jSb7Jw18DbijZ53imTnM823yfzmURu89cUFC1h_hmZx9vnbLMDln1NItN8JhoPBFO7rur-ka1zROryEst2ggmir/s1600/income.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="370" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5AeILO3-KuhSmDJeMA1Z0xO7_p2p3iVZcRZ-A4x5GJODguH34JLXR9jSb7Jw18DbijZ53imTnM823yfzmURu89cUFC1h_hmZx9vnbLMDln1NItN8JhoPBFO7rur-ka1zROryEst2ggmir/s640/income.gif" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0703.pdf">Source</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Out of 117728 households, 1181 have income greater than $250K. 1181/117728 = 0.010 or 1%. It is important to look only on income and not on wealth:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working." <a href="http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html/">G. William Domhoff</a></blockquote>
If the primary means of funding our government is through revenue generated from taxes, does a tax rate of 39% for the "one percenters" help us more than the 15% guys like Romney are paying now?<br />
<br />
In my last <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2012/07/mitt-romneys-546-million-dollars.html">post</a> I asked:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So if a guy like Romney, one of those "one precenter" types is also going to be called a "job creator" then how will his income - which is investment income - be affected by increasing the cost to the business by adding jobs or increasing the pay?</blockquote>
In order to pay 15% Romney's income had to come from capital gains and not from wages. According to <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/24/news/economy/Romney_tax_return/index.htm">CNN</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Romney took in $21.7 million in long-term capital gains over the past two years. Of that, $12.9 million was in so-called carried interest. Carried interest is a share of profits paid to general partners at private equity firms -- such as Bain Capital, which Romney left in 1999. General partners manage the firm's investments. If those investments are sold at a profit, the carried interest represents a portion of those profits above a minimum rate of return.</blockquote>
So Romney makes money from investing his money - income - in firms like Bain Capital. What else produced capital gains for Romney? According to CNN:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Brad Malt, a lawyer who serves as trustee of the Romneys' blind trusts, said Romney pays all U.S. taxes on income from the trusts' foreign investments. Further, he said Romney has no role in choosing how the blind trusts invest his money. "The blind trust investments in the Cayman funds are taxed exactly as if Gov. Romney owned his share of the funds in the United States," Malt said.</blockquote>
Hmmm. Okay, so Romney takes his money not used to buy gas and food and pay for his standard of living and invests it. That's exactly what Marco Rubio believes is the right course for the US; allow guys like Romney to keep more of their income so they can invest it by giving them a 15% tax rate on capital gains and not 39%.<br />
<br />
So investment <i><u>is</u></i> happening, but is it generating growth in the form of new tax payers which is what Marco Rubio's <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/415858/playlist_tds_extended_marco_rubio/415834">model</a> is predicated on for generating the revenue the government needs to operate and to pay down our debt? We either cut spending and increase taxes on the 1% - as Jon Stewart contends - or we only focus on growth of our economy.<br />
<br />
The devils in the details. For "growth only" to work - as Rubio believes it will - it must produce new tax payers. This growth is dependent on guys like Romney - the one precenters with the money to invest - investing in new business that create tax paying employees who are currently paying zero income tax now.<br />
<br />
Romney is investing, and growth is happening, but is that investment and growth creating the new tax payers Rubio believes will produce the needed revenue for our government?<br />
<br />
If Romney generates income form foreign investments, that money is not directly producing a new american worker who will now pay taxes. If Romney puts money into the Cayman Islands, that money is not - directly - producing new employers in the US and therefore will not produce new tax payers. And if Romney, like his fellow one precenters, invests their money in companies like Bain Capital, is that money - that investment Rubio speaks about - the "only way" to generate the revenue needed to pay our bills and debt?<br />
<br />
At the 15% tax rate, Romney was allowed to keep $5.46 million dollars. The government, with its deficit and debt, allowed Romney to do this because of the belief in the Rubio model. If Romney invests that money in foreign companies, the Cayman Islands, and into Bain Capital, is the Rubio model of "growth only" more myth than plausible?<br />
<br />
Once again, let me be clear on this. The issue is not about Mitt Romney. I would probably do the same type of investing, though I am a little more keen on keeping it on US soil. The issue is on "growth only" as a means to fund the government. Mitt Romney is what "growth only" is dependent on. Foreign investments and Cayman Island accounts are not going to make Rubio's model work since it does not create new tax payers and only creates income that is taxed at 15%.<br />
<br />
Next post: Does $5.46 million invested in Bain Capital create new tax payers?<br />
<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-81067039959899004622012-07-02T08:33:00.001-05:002012-07-02T10:56:11.735-05:00Mitt Romney's $5.46 million dollars created how many new tax payers?First off, let me get this out of the way. If I were in Romney's shoes, I would make the same <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-returns/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html">statement</a> he made:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“You’ll see my income, how much taxes I’ve paid, how much I’ve paid to charity. I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. </blockquote>
The argument I want to make in this post is not on how much, or how little, Romney pays in Federal taxes, it is simply about whether the money he keeps from not being taxed 39% instead of 15% is used to create jobs that create new tax payers that then provide the revenue for the government. That's the only way the Marco Rubio's model of "the only solution is growth" will work as a means for funding our current governmental needs and paying down the debt.<br />
<br />
If the money Mr. Romney keeps is not used to produce new tax payers than the government will continue to run a deficit and the debt will increase. Period.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/24/news/economy/Romney_tax_return/index.htm">CNN</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Romney and his wife, Ann, filed a joint 1040 reporting $21.7 million in 2010 income and $3 million in federal taxes. They also said their 2011 income was $21 million and tax bill was $3.2 million.</blockquote>
That is an effective Federal tax rate of 13.8 percent. If, as one of those making greater than $250,000 Romney were to be taxed at 39% as proposed, the government would see an increase in its revenue of $5.46 million dollars from the Romney's.<br />
<br />
The argument made by Rubio is that the $5.46 million is better left in the Romney's hands than given to the government. Hard to disagree on that principle, but...the Rubio model of "growth is the only way" to manage the deficit and pay down the debt is predicated on the United States increasing the number of tax payers.<br />
<br />
That can be done in one of two way: 1. Employee those who are currently not employed and go from zero income tax to some income tax being paid. 2. Increase the salaries and take home pay of those currently working.<br />
<br />
The problem with those two requirements is that they run counter to what the business person has been trained to do for his/her company. That is, do as much as possible for as little money as possible. This, along with the common notion that the largest cost to a business is labor, puts the business in a position to drive down wages and employee as few employees as possible.<br />
<br />
So if a guy like Romney, one of those "one precenter" types is also going to be called a "job creator" then how will his income - which is investment income - be affected by increasing the cost to the business by adding jobs or increasing the pay?<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/24/news/economy/Romney_tax_return/index.htm">CNN</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.</blockquote>
So can guys like Romney be "job creators" when their income is derived from investments that are predicated on keeping costs low? Theoretically they can, assuming that there is constant growth so that the demand drives the need for more employees and higher wages. Without that demand, however, we are at the mercy of guys like Romney who control the money needed to invest in new business, education, and infrastructure to get those goods to market.<br />
<br />
So back to my question: Did the $5.46 Romney got to keep because he does not have to pay a 39% tax rate create more new jobs and higher wages to make this model - the one Rubio swears by - more effective than what would be done with that money had it gone to the government as additional taxes?<br />
<br />
Now it is easy to get lost in the taxes part of the discussion. No one wants to pay taxes and everyone wants to pay as little taxes as they can. But the fact of the matter is, if you live in a democracy you must pay for the services that democracy provides.<br />
<br />
This is not a debate on what is a fair tax. Romney <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-returns/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html">says</a> “I’m proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes.” And that he does, but is it enough to pay for the government that he, I and you (if you live in the US) benefit from?<br />
<br />
At this point in time we have both a deficit and a debt that is dragging our country down. If Rubio is correct and letting guys like Romney keep that money so they can invest it and create new tax payers, then we need to see some proof that that is indeed what is being done with that money.<br />
<br />
Why? Because we know that the government <b><u>does</u></b> create new jobs through job programs as well as investing in new technology and education for the future. The government does this with tax revenues from guys like Mitt Romney. Rubio and his cohorts contend that guys like Romney do the same thing, and they do it better.<br />
<br />
Do they?<br />
<br />
Next post: Does Mitt Romney's income come from investments that help Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-88545533279020914882012-07-01T21:49:00.000-05:002012-07-02T09:17:21.433-05:00Marco Rubio's One Trick PonyOkay...okay, "one trick pony" is not really the right phrase, but "Excalibur sword" was used by Jon Stewart in his <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/415858/playlist_tds_extended_marco_rubio/415834">interview</a> with the Senator on the June 25th Daily Show. Nobody gets to the heart of an issue in an interview like Jon Stewart. The man is great at seeing how the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.<br />
<br />
Marco Rubio said over and over "the only way to solve the problem is growth." Now on the surface this makes sense, but it really no more an "only way" than winning the lottery is the only way for me to become a millionaire.<br />
<br />
Somehow this seemingly bright and articulate man drank the kool-aid and actually believes that anything that hinders growth - regardless of the benefits or soundness - will never be acceptable to Republicans.<br />
<br />
"How do you shrink the deficit?" Jon asks.<br />
<br />
Grow the economy" Rubio responds. "The government will generate more revenue (through jobs produced from that growth producing more tax payers) and that (tax) revenue will be used to pay down the deficit."<br />
<br />
This ideological purity is based on an acceptance of the "job creator" concept. That is, if you let the rich - those with money to invest - keep their money (e.g. 15% instead of 39% tax) they will invest it in growth and a person without a job "paying zero taxes" will become a person making 50 to 80K a year which will then be taxed.<br />
<br />
"I would most like to see much rather those people (rich) take that money and invest it," Rubio tells Jon, :to grow their business or start a new one. And you (Jon) would much rather have them give it to government and the government would spend it on something."<br />
<br />
How can an idea that sounds valid - growth producing jobs which produce tax payers - not be the prudent course of action?<br />
<br />
"Tax increases don't generate growth," Rubio states. "If you leave it in the economy they will use it."<br />
<br />
Okay, so let's look at this objectively:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: yellow;">Assuming that growth is the only answer, will the government or the individual produce the jobs needed to produce the revenue needed to run the government and pay down the debt?</span><br />
<br />
First, let's get a few "facts" on the table so we can take them off and objectively answer the question:<br />
<br />
1) New business require funding to get off the ground.<br />
2) The government wastes money with bureaucratic requirements and inefficiency.<br />
3) The obligations of the government are just that, obligations, and must be paid for regardless of benefit to the individual paying the tax.<br />
4) The purpose of a business is to generate wealth for its stake/stock holders. How that wealth is defined is irrelevant to that goal.<br />
<br />
If you cannot accept all of these, then you drank the kool-aid and my argument will fall flat. I am wanting to explore the idea that growth is "the only to solve the problem." If it is the only way, then growth must take place in a way that produces the tax payers needed to fund the government's current needs. That's Rubio's understanding and, if I take him at face value in this interview, he will not accept anything that can be seen as hindering the potential for that growth.<br />
<br />
Right now, the idea of a tax increase - any tax increase - is seen as hindering growth and will never be considered by Rubio and I suspect, the rest of his Republican cohorts. Okay, so let's accept that any additional tax will hinder growth thereby creating a new tax payer. For growth to be "the only way to solve the problem" then all money not taxed must be invested in growth that generates more tax payers (from no job paying zero to a new tax payer making $80K).<br />
<br />
Well maybe not "all the money" but more of it must be used to create growth and new tax payers than what the government would create if it, instead, received said money through additional taxes on the person.<br />
<br />
This is, in my opinion, a fair question to ask. Let's look at Mr. Romney as an example of "how the only way to solve the problem is growth" plays out in the real world. First, let's make sure we have the word growth defined. Rich folks have seen their fortunes rise and they are doing "pretty well" as Jon says, speaking of himself as one of these well off folk. Growth, as Rubio makes the case, must create new tax payers from those currently not paying taxes (listen to the interview).<br />
<br />
So the question now is (and not to pick on Mr. Romney but his tax rate and revenue is known), how many new tax payers - growth - did the untaxed money Romney got to keep create? If guys like Romney are job creators, do they actually create more jobs than the government would create if it instead taxed them at 39%?<br />
<br />
For Rubio's "only solution is growth" model to work to both fund our government and pay down the debt, new tax payers must be made at a rate that exceeds what the government would create and/or do with that money. If you think guys like Romney are job creators, then we should see all that untaxed money go into creating jobs for our fellow citizens, or else Rubio's model will not work and he is hindering what is best for America by not allowing other models to be considered.<br />
<br />
Did Mitt Romney's untaxed money create the necessary new tax payers to make Rubio's model a plausible course of action and not just an ideological myth?<br />
<br />
Next Post: Mitt Romney's $5.46 million dollars created how many new tax payers?<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-10956908429102404982012-06-10T10:23:00.001-05:002012-06-10T10:24:41.564-05:00Vietnam - CIA And The GeneralsI am working on a book, my first (second if you count an unpublished novel), dealing with General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (pronounced "low-ahn"), the guy who was both filmed and <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/01/stop-press-unless-you-are-spinning-it.html">photographed</a> shooting the prisoner during Tet Offensive of 1968.<br />
<br />
I find the story fascinating, especially the manipulation of the events and the man (Loan) in order to rectify a particular point of view. In the bigger picture of this one famous event, is the whole situation of Vietnam from 1966 to 1975.<br />
<br />
As part of my research, I have tried to read as much information on General Loan and Tet as I can get my hands on. One of the sources of information that has come available are secret document from the CIA and the Administration that are now available online. I recently went to the Johnson Library at UT-Austin and got myself a research pass to look at the documents there. I am going to look at Eddie Adam's journal from 1968 next time I am in town. The Adam's collection is also held at UT-Austin.<br />
<br />
I just finished reading a declassified CIA book called "CIA and the Generals: Covert Support to Military Government in South Vietnam."<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1Yh5wB1GRs5ggxQ8cIdwshyphenhyphen2_H5RSnfV0E3LZdzOOO5KjHRBOt1INcyZOKHCqemj7_25zBDppl6b17XyoDjKjlyuhGveg8eeN3iruXhU6LHXqJnBiAYU2ek1aghMbjUn1GIgUY9686cl/s1600/The+Generals.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1Yh5wB1GRs5ggxQ8cIdwshyphenhyphen2_H5RSnfV0E3LZdzOOO5KjHRBOt1INcyZOKHCqemj7_25zBDppl6b17XyoDjKjlyuhGveg8eeN3iruXhU6LHXqJnBiAYU2ek1aghMbjUn1GIgUY9686cl/s320/The+Generals.gif" width="230" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: <a href="http://www.foia.cia.gov/vietnam/1_CIA_AND_THE_GENERALS.pdf">FOIA-CIA</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
This, in my opinion, along with the <a href="http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/powell.htm">Powell Doctrine</a> should be "must" reading for anyone given the power to commit their nation's blood and treasure to further a goal.<br />
<br />
Despite what General Brady (the guy who started me down this <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/01/and-you-were-there-only-we-forgot-to.html">path</a> of understanding Vietnam) may think, it was not because, as he <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Despite-reports-of-the-day-Tet-battle-was-981815.php">puts</a> it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[o]ur defeat came from the elite in the courtrooms, the classroom, the cloakrooms and the newsrooms, from cowardly media-phobic politicians and irresponsible, dishonest media and professors from Berkeley to Harvard.</blockquote>
How a Two-Star General can be so clueless on what took place in Vietnam, the country and war he was fighting in, is a perfect example of why we "lost" in Vietnam. In two words, it can be summed up as "The Generals." More precisely, it can be described as the ineptitude of those in charge. And by inept, I mean lacking in the the general suitability for the task at hand, the inability to learn and reason. General Brady is a prime example of this, as were the Generals running South Vietnam in 67 - 75. They may be good at military management where you bark and order and see it get performed, but they lack the ability to understand the dynamics in play when that authority has no bearing on the situation and wisdom and compromise are what is necessary.<br />
<br />
One thing you glean from reading this book is that the US understood we were not going to "win" back in late 1967, before Tet, before Walter Cronkite, before John Kerry. We held out hope, but it was doomed because of the ineptitude of the Generals that were the government offed in response to the Communists of the North.<br />
<br />
Let me sum it up for you, using the CIA's take on this time and place:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[this book] traces the tortuous course of events in Saigon following the fall of President Ngo Dinh Diem. Ahern strikingly illustrates Saigon Station efforts to work with and understand the various military governments of South Vietnam which followed Diem, and carefully details CIA attempts to <span style="color: #cc0000;">stabilize and urge democratization on the changing military regimes in order to save South Vietnam from Communism</span>.</blockquote>
Read that section in red. That was our problem, that was why we were doomed to fail or have it drag on and on and on. Same thing with Afghanistan and Iraq. Without a stable government that the people being governed can get behind, no amount of resolve, money, bodies, or non-defeatism will make a difference.<br />
<br />
The US was there to "save" the South from Communism. That goal was not of interest to the Vietnamese people:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[t]he essential point as Polgar [CIA Chief of Station (COS)] saw it was that Nguyen Cao Ky and then Nguyen Van Thieu had succeeded where their predecessors failed by establishing security and by offering the fundamentally apolitical peasant the prospect of improved living standards. (page 135)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Polgar's DCOS [Deputy Chief of Station], Conrad LaGueux, was less confident that the massive American investment in the rural economy had produced greater loyalty to the regime: in his retrospective opinion, "<span style="color: red;">the VC had extensive popular support.</span>" (page 135)</blockquote>
That took place in 1973. You see, while we were "saving" Vietnam, the people - the "apolitical peasants" were wanting Communism. That was a reality and a dynamic in play starting early on in Vietnam. It was in play in the early 60's, 67, 68, 73, and finally to its conclusion in 75. We were saving people from something they could care less about in the first place. We [US] feared Communism. The Generals feared Communism because they would lose their livelihood. But the people - the hearts and minds we needed to make this work - could care less.<br />
<br />
"Care", in this case, was a result of their living conditions. The Generals in charge of the South (the Government of Vietnam -GVN) were too inept to fully comprehend this, so the "sweat cancer" of corruption and self-gratification prevailed in the South. The Communists offered something other than the Generals. The Generals, themselves were fractured between northerners (Ky) and southerners (Thieu) and they were all at odds with the Buddhists who resented the Catholics who were put in charge of running the government by the French. South Vietnam was a mess, and there we (US) were trying to make it into something it was not ready or willing to be.<br />
<br />
But it was not for lack of trying. 55,000 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Vietnamese can attest to that effort. Our defeat was not at the hands of the media or Berkeley professors, it was inept men who controlled the situation that lacked the wisdom and aptitude to fully comprehend the dynamics and reality in play.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But even at its best, it perpetuated the almost schizoid Agency (and US Government) approach to the political aspect of the conflict. The GVN had to be invigorated and reformed, and the peasantry must be won over to the government side. CIA did indeed recognize the need to 'develop peasant leadership, at least at the local level. But it never questioned the contradictory imperative that this be done without disturbing the social and economic structure bequeathed by the French colonial regime. (page 228)</blockquote>
We knew it was a task that relied too much on an oversimplification of human endeavor. We feared Communism so we did what we thought would curtail it. Threw money and bodies at it. But Communism meant nothing to the Vietnamese other than it was non-French and non-US and non-military control.<br />
<br />
We knew it was doomed before Tet of 68. We knew but continued down a path deemed appropriate and sound by inept men we put in charge of such decisions.<br />
<br />
So I'll close this post with this little bit of behind the scenes information (pages 135 & 136):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
One of Polgar's officers in the Indications and Assessment Branch (lAB) remembered the working level as less <a href="http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/sanguine">sanguine</a> even than LaGueux. Robert Vandaveer had run the Station's office in Hue for two years before he came to Saigon in mid-1973 to join IAB.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Explaining the reason for this assignment, Polgar told Vandaveer that the "social democratic" bias of the branch, staffed by DI (Directorate of Intelligence) officers, needed to be balanced by a DO (Directorate of Operations) presence; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Vandaveer took this to mean that Polgar wanted to see more commitment to the government cause and less agonizing about its weaknesses. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The COS did not prohibit reporting bad news, but he did impose strict standards of verification, and a requirement that such reporting be "put into perspective." In practice, this meant that reports of government corruption, individual instances of which were hard to confirm, were seldom disseminated. And when a village headquarters, for example, was lost to a Communist landgrabbing operation after the Paris agreement, the report had to specify the much greater number of villages remaining under Saigon's control. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The requirement for "perspective" did not apply to good news, and Vandaveer thought that when retired Major General Timmes made his periodic tours to debrief his ARVN contacts on the Station's behalf, Polgar accepted his usually upbeat reporting at face value. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As Vandaveer saw it, the divergent views of management and the working level reflected a Mission-wide phenomenon, with the Mission Council clinging to an optimistic, "get with the program" mentality that echoed the style of the now-departed US combat forces. Station analysts, on the other hand, looked at the reporting of Hanoi's infiltration of men and supplies in a "mood of foreboding," and many street case officers were entirely cynical about the integrity of the South Vietnamese political process.</blockquote>
That's not coming from General Brady's "dishonest media" that's what the CIA has described about the attitude of those in charge of "winning."<br />
<br />
"Get with the program" is always shorthand for ignore the reality and accept an inept leader's magical thinking.<br />
<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-19070299211432975762012-06-09T11:52:00.001-05:002012-06-09T11:52:35.274-05:00Chevy Camaro plays "hide the battery."Enterprise Rental Car gave me a 2012 Camaro to drive this last week. Felt like a guy in a midlife crisis, but what the heck.<br />
<br />
So being from that generation where muscle cars ruled, we popped the hood to take a look at the engine.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyzNGknkHWz8bH-taBYBsOUwFoOw4B5hA1X5roBzQBg-s9LW7Jxu53Q9D4LOfp1peoGm_v6v7B-sXJto6JHOVpNxX7Rl59Cqv1g11oKQaOzDkROnvnFarkNmHDSh2c__n48G7HuWE6MJk8/s1600/photo+(7).JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyzNGknkHWz8bH-taBYBsOUwFoOw4B5hA1X5roBzQBg-s9LW7Jxu53Q9D4LOfp1peoGm_v6v7B-sXJto6JHOVpNxX7Rl59Cqv1g11oKQaOzDkROnvnFarkNmHDSh2c__n48G7HuWE6MJk8/s320/photo+(7).JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Hey, where is the battery?<br />
<br />
Let's look in the owner's manual...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGfkKO-DE_CuOuSveCbZkS2LiM56rGpfntpPYLA_zhYs-LfHpBdm-RQ6JcSmef8gqDjqGqEl-J0F4XjKl3tfDRgj_XmKQbKkfnik7YdQPlUNZ8EVSCvhlXjt6YoZCnu2N7_0jlOy6aHGlY/s1600/photo+(1).JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGfkKO-DE_CuOuSveCbZkS2LiM56rGpfntpPYLA_zhYs-LfHpBdm-RQ6JcSmef8gqDjqGqEl-J0F4XjKl3tfDRgj_XmKQbKkfnik7YdQPlUNZ8EVSCvhlXjt6YoZCnu2N7_0jlOy6aHGlY/s320/photo+(1).JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
...under "battery" which just seemed logical to us.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXwUzsKZacw-42T6iWKjAZRvwlWHZh_OTuxqc6BntKn4xUCfsE-BaWUaCLcZ0NK18pnnYU8BAjr292ZZRQ7ylNZdtUUzTsmms0t4NOiMQwKFoIpRYFJcbsDloAUrxo_hFdPkhfwHdh1_T4/s1600/photo.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXwUzsKZacw-42T6iWKjAZRvwlWHZh_OTuxqc6BntKn4xUCfsE-BaWUaCLcZ0NK18pnnYU8BAjr292ZZRQ7ylNZdtUUzTsmms0t4NOiMQwKFoIpRYFJcbsDloAUrxo_hFdPkhfwHdh1_T4/s320/photo.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
OK...turn to page "10-30"....</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXwY6RekYBrBQbaoI_ZmR3awahBX6IsJGhBYxjZ7iNKEFCqmw33BICodZJHl5kBGCFY63PGslMbAdDy96Yy7Y822yhDiYP8OYBt6REI0fUVfABDtj86bgPDJk1kKqtRzJc8UeaCpXxtnpA/s1600/photo+(6).JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXwY6RekYBrBQbaoI_ZmR3awahBX6IsJGhBYxjZ7iNKEFCqmw33BICodZJHl5kBGCFY63PGslMbAdDy96Yy7Y822yhDiYP8OYBt6REI0fUVfABDtj86bgPDJk1kKqtRzJc8UeaCpXxtnpA/s320/photo+(6).JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Says turn to page 10-6 for battery location...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEild2tqpYAk7-gvXJaRAgH3_WpyftodzRpviGys84unUfke8E6cGtwfczBQoRSYwHNQJJV4u5OMapruDtA5JiKwJdq7MrjrXN_e7hx2iI-xY7l9DK4xECnuzUgLyljxwXx-xUqh2F7MS5M0/s1600/photo+(3).JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEild2tqpYAk7-gvXJaRAgH3_WpyftodzRpviGys84unUfke8E6cGtwfczBQoRSYwHNQJJV4u5OMapruDtA5JiKwJdq7MrjrXN_e7hx2iI-xY7l9DK4xECnuzUgLyljxwXx-xUqh2F7MS5M0/s320/photo+(3).JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Which tells you to....</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvD6yXluHgcmcXlbvPv7i6gj0Wd6qKbpTL9Oxl9Ioe4nGgR0EBPMWhGWrZTeKpTeOE4gejq_bczMYaqIdyCbjBjwKVPw_EzMFiqgnA4vwg_DGSdVHgEx-aGcU3tZ-XSAK6YA8eedR0fj4g/s1600/photo+(4).JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvD6yXluHgcmcXlbvPv7i6gj0Wd6qKbpTL9Oxl9Ioe4nGgR0EBPMWhGWrZTeKpTeOE4gejq_bczMYaqIdyCbjBjwKVPw_EzMFiqgnA4vwg_DGSdVHgEx-aGcU3tZ-XSAK6YA8eedR0fj4g/s320/photo+(4).JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Go to page 10-30!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So where <i><b><u>is</u></b></i> the battery? Nothing in the manual tells you where it is (we're not that stupid - we figured it was in the trunk or under the back seat).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Aha! Google search!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Which leads me to a site called "<a href="http://www.motorz.tv/blog/1332/how-to-get-to-the-battery-in-a-2010-chevy-camaro/">MotorZ</a>" that tells me it is in the trunk, and this gives this warning:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Don’t shut that trunk! We did this Quick Tip not because the battery is difficult to get to, but because there’s a design issue with the 2010 Camaro and I wanted to make sure Camaro owners knew about it… because I got hit with it myself. Once you disconnect your battery, do not close your trunk! Since there is no keyhole in the trunk to open it with a key, and the push button on the driver’s door to open the trunk runs off electricity (not to mention the button on your remote won’t work either), there’s no way to open it back up!</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
Really? You build a really cool car with this type of design flaw and produce a manual that is devoid of this fact as well as lending any useful information on just where that critical component is located. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
Good thing Chevy gave me four pages on how to operate my seat belt and radio knobs!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
.</div>Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-20572456743077652582012-04-26T19:31:00.000-05:002012-04-26T19:31:09.910-05:00Wars kill people. That is what makes them different from all other forms of human enterprise.[Written last year]<br />
<br />
You know where that title came from? Colin Powell. That's from his paper: U.S. Forces Challenges Ahead, 1992 in Foreign Affairs; Vol. 71 Issue 5, p32-45, 14p. What's in that paper is also referred to as the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine">Powell Doctrine</a>."<br />
<br />
You know what else he said in that paper:<br />
<blockquote>
We owe it to the men and women who go in harm's way to make sure that this is always the case and that their lives are not squandered for unclear purposes.</blockquote>
Look what John Kerry <a href="https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/johnkerrytestimony.html">said</a> in 1971:<br />
<blockquote>
...In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart....</blockquote>
Look at what Robert Kennedy <a href="http://teach.yauger.net/us/vietnam/rfkvietnam.pdf">said</a> in 1968:<br />
<blockquote>
This has not happened because our men are not brave or effective, because they are. It is because we have misconceived the nature of the war: It is because we have sought to resolve by military might a conflict whose issue depends upon the will and conviction of the South Vietnamese people. It is like sending a lion to halt an epidemic of jungle rot.</blockquote>
Why would we use the term "squandered" if that were not a possibility for the men and woman who are asked to serve? Obviously Powell was speaking from some historical grounding. If we are the greatest country in the world, surely we would never "squander" these lives. Correct?<br />
<br />
Look at what else Powell says:<br />
<blockquote>
When the political objective is important, clearly defined and understood, when the risks are acceptable, and when the use of force can be effectively combined with diplomatic and economic policies, then clear and unambiguous objectives must be given to the armed forces. These objectives must be firmly linked with the political objectives.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Decisive means and results are always to be preferred, even if they are not always possible. We should always be skeptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack. When the "surgery" is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation--more bombs, more men and women, more force. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
History has not been kind to this approach to war-making. In fact this approach has been tragic--both for the men and women who are called upon to implement it and for the nation. This is not to argue that the use of force is restricted to only those occasions where the victory of American arms will be resounding, swift and overwhelming. It is simply to argue that the use of force should be restricted to occasions where it can do some good and where the good will outweigh the loss of lives and other costs that will surely ensue. </blockquote>
See that? "A new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation--more bombs, more men and women, more force." Golly jeepers, doesn't that sound just like Vietnam? And what about those absolutists who think we <i><u>could</u></i> have won if we dropped more bombs, kicked the press out, sent more troops, and used every tool and resource we had against the enemy. Had we just had the will.... <br />
<br />
Here is what Powell says about war:<br />
<blockquote>
All wars are limited. As Carl von Clausewitz was careful to point out, there has never been a state of absolute war. Such a state would mean total annihilation. The Athenians at Melos, Attila the Hun, Tamerlane, the Romans salting the fields of the Carthaginians may have come close, but even their incredible ruthlessness gave way to pragmatism before a state of absolute war was achieved`</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Gulf War was a limited-objective war. If it had not been, we would be ruling Baghdad today--at unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships. The Gulf War was also a limited-means war--we did not use every means at our disposal to eject the Iraqi Army from Kuwait. But we did use over-whelming force quickly and decisively. This, I believe, is why some have characterized that war as an "all-out" war. It was strictly speaking no such thing.</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Vietnam was not addressed in a similar manner as was the Gulf War. For that matter, neither was invading Iraq and Afghanistan at the turn of this century. Without clear objectives military might means very little in obtaining an end point. Had the US body count been more, we would have demanded we get out of those two places in a similar manner as Vietnam, I suspect. As I write this, we are still in Afghanistan.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
What Kennedy and Kerry understood was what Powell would come to articulate in 1992. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Kennedy said:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<blockquote>
The fifth illusion is that this war can be settled in our own way and in our own time on our own terms. Such a settlement is the privilege of the triumphant: of those who crush their enemies in battle or wear away their will to fight. </blockquote>
Kerry said:<br />
<blockquote>
Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerrilla wars and I think we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate threats, but we must learn, in this country, how to define those threats and that is what I would say to the question of world peace. I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands. </blockquote>
Now look at what Powell says:<br />
<blockquote>
When a "fire" starts that might require committing armed forces, we need to evaluate the circumstances. Relevant questions include:</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined and understood?</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Have all other nonviolent policy means failed? </li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Will military force achieve the objective? </li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>At what cost? </li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Have the gains and risks been analyzed? </li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences?</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
As an example of this logical process, we can examine the assertions of those who have asked why [first] President Bush did not order our forces on to Baghdad after we had driven the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. We must assume that the political objective of such an order would have been capturing Saddam Hussein. Even if Hussein had waited for us to enter Baghdad, and even if we had been able to capture him, what purpose would it have served? </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And would serving that purpose have been worth the many more casualties that would have occurred? Would it have been worth the inevitable follow-up: major occupation forces in Iraq for years to come and a very expensive and complex American proconsulship in Baghdad? Fortunately for America, reasonable people at the time thought not. They still do.</blockquote>
In 1968, reasonable people like Cronkite, Kennedy, and Kerry looked at what we were doing through a logical and objective process and understood that total warfare was never going to be an option, that the political objective was not clearly defined or understood, which - as they saw it, made the risk for continued effort unacceptable.<br />
<br />
Because we could not effectively combine military force with diplomatic and economic policies, clear and unambiguous objectives would never be given to the armed forces. There became no war for the military to win unless we wanted to opt for total annihilation, which to this day, is an option some, like General Brady and Kid Rock, would have no qualms in ordering.<br />
<br />
Now lets look at what General Powell <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30038761/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/full-text-transcript-colin-powell-talks-rachel-maddow/">told</a> Rachel Maddow, April 1, 2009:<br />
<blockquote>
Decide what you are trying to achieve politically and if it can't be achieved through political and diplomatic and economic means, and you have to use military force, then make sure you know exactly what you're using the military force for and then apply it in a decisive manner.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Now, the means he's [Obama] applying to it—21,000 more troops, hundreds more civilians, a billion and a half dollars a year to Pakistan—is that enough? Is that decisive? I don't know the answer to that question because even the greatest of all strategists must take into account the presence of an enemy.</blockquote>
In Vietnam it appears we had met the enemy, and that enemy was Ky and Loan. So when Kerry said:<br />
<blockquote>
We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?</blockquote>
It's that word 'mistake' that causes all the bitterness. Did over 55 thousand Americans die for a mistake? Surely we cannot think that fathomable, that our government did not do them right. At some point opinion changed enough to bring the war to a close. It took people going against the notion of my country right or wrong. It took people questioning their duty to fight and die for a situation that did not make sense.<br />
<br />
And the reason it started to not make sense was because bit by bit the picture of what was happening there became clearer. You can manipulate the words and background all you want, but sometimes when you look at a cigar, what you see is just a cigar regardless of what your mind may want to compare it to.<br />
<br />
So did our <i>defeat</i> in Vietnam come from, as General Brady <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Despite-reports-of-the-day-Tet-battle-was-981815.php">states</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"the elite in the courtrooms, the classroom, the cloakrooms and the newsrooms, from cowardly media-phobic politicians and irresponsible, dishonest media and professors from Berkeley to Harvard."</blockquote>
Or did these folks see it for what it was. Were they cowardly, dishonest, misleading, liars, and bastards for speaking out? Did they have an obligation - a right - to question the expenditure of blood and treasure? Does the public ever have a <i>right</i> to tell its government involved in war, stop?<br />
<br />
General Powell thinks so:<br />
<blockquote>
"I have infinite faith in the American people's ability to sense when and where we should draw the line."</blockquote>
Two US Generals, two very different opinions. I think I'll listen to the more reasoned one.<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-60132201394458233732012-04-07T13:06:00.000-05:002012-04-07T13:06:16.070-05:00How Famine Works...Heard this while <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=149390748">listening</a> to Fresh Air's Terry Gross interview Jeffrey Gettleman, who was set to receive a George Polk Award for foreign reporting.<br />
<br />
Odd, after all these years I never understood how famine actually works. This is a cautionary tale on why a society must take care of its people and how a total "everyone for themselves" model will lead to those who have and those who will die.<br />
<br />
From the show:<br />
<blockquote>
GETTLEMAN: Famines are about distribution. They're not about total capacity to feed people. In Mogadishu there was plenty of food when I was there, so I was eating chicken, beef, vegetables. I was eating fine. We'd go to the hospital, we witnessed these people who had run out of food and were marooned in the city without any resources, and then we would go back to the place we were staying and we would eat fine.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And other people were eating fine on the streets of Mogadishu. That was what was so striking to me of watching this man emerge from the hospital with the body of his child in his arms and he's walking past pyramids of oranges and stacks of bread and sacks of flour. And that's what happens in all these famines. It's the same thing.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
GROSS: So is it money? Like, you had the money to buy food; this man with the dead child in his arms did not?</blockquote>
<blockquote>
GETTLEMAN: It's mostly money. And it's also a distribution problem. If you have money you can get food just about anywhere, except for areas that are really cut off and have blockages in them, like what the Shabab are doing. But once you get to the city, yeah, if you had money you could buy food.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
But these people have lost everything they own. They've lost their animals, they've lost their homes, they've used what little money they had just to get to Mogadishu. So yeah, they don't have any money to get any food. And at that point, you know, you need specialized food. These kids need, you know, they need medicine. They need IVs. They need to be hospitalized.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
You can't just hand them a banana when they're in that state. You know, their systems have been so compromised. So you know, it's a multi-layered problem that starts where they came from - that they were living on the edge, probably very poor, malnourished to begin with. And then they were driven out of their area, put on the run without anything to sustain them.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And then they show up completely broke in a place where <u><b>there's no social safety net, there's no government to help them, and they're cut off from their families, their support network.</b></u> So who's going to help them? And on that scale. I mean when we were in Mogadishu last year during the famine, there were hundreds of thousands of people like this</blockquote>
So who's going to help them?<br />
<br />
The free market? The same free market that is selling the "pyramids of oranges and stacks of bread and sacks of flour?" This is where a bit of understanding the dynamics comes in and the simple solutions that people think will work fall apart.<br />
<br />
The guy selling the oranges and bread cannot feed them, he could - but he would need to cut some off or else face the same prospect. So even if he takes one or two under charity, many more are still in need.<br />
<br />
Those who cannot buy food cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They are there for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with past decisions they made. Right now they need food, and without charity or money they will starve.<br />
<br />
Should starvation be the only thing our government focuses on to "<a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html">promote the general Welfare</a>?"<br />
<br />
How we, one of the richest societies ever, and we - the people - take care of each other is a reflection of our overall values and is what the Founders meant by "promote the general Welfare" as a necessary parameter of the constitution they set forth.<br />
<br />
Does welfare - as we know it now - promote sloth? Yeah, but dumping more and more responsibility to care for oneself on those with little money and support networks is just cruel.<br />
<br />
I think there is a middle ground - not too much to hurt and not too much to hinder - that will help all. Maybe that's what that Jesus dude meant when he said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Verily I say unto you, Since you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40</blockquote>
A few should not carry the whole burden for those who lack empathy or compassion, or for reasons known to them only, see some "brethren" as undeserving or not one in the same as them.<br />
<br />
<br />Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-22167052101315904062012-04-07T12:35:00.001-05:002012-04-07T16:02:55.747-05:00What did John Kerry say on April 22, 1971 that was false?Lets be up front with this. No one likes it when they are told that the reason they are fat is because they overeat.<br />
<br />
The question regarding if that statement is true or false has nothing to do with it. No one likes to be told something they don't want to hear. And, if what they are told is false, well that's even worse. You know, them's fight'n words!<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.tosettherecordstraight.com/">contention</a> of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth is that:<br />
<blockquote>
"Vietnam veterans who had long resented his [John Kerry] false 1971 testimony that American troops routinely committed war crimes."</blockquote>
And....<br />
<blockquote>
"Kerry's [testimony presented a] false portrait of American veterans as misfits, drug addicts and baby killers."</blockquote>
When you quote something, you can lose the context, that's why I provide the source. It is possible that I have misconstrued SBV's statements, but in this case, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
I have found a consistency in the absolutists portrayal of the press, Walter Cronkite, Robert Kennedy, and now John Kerry. To call something false means it is not true. To call something dishonest, means it is purposely false. To call something misleading means that the author added or left out required facts.<br />
<br />
Did John Kerry testify that "American troops routinely committed war crimes?" Here is what he <a href="https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/johnkerrytestimony.html">said </a>on April 22, 1971 that relates to this charge by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth:<br />
<blockquote>
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....</blockquote>
<blockquote>
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out. </blockquote>
So, yes, John Kerry accused some of his fellow vets of war crimes in 1971. Was this a false statement?<br />
<br />
According to an August 6, 2006 Los Angeles Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-vietnam6aug06,0,92368.story?page=1">article</a> "Civilian Killings Went Unpunished."<br />
<blockquote>
The files are part of a once-secret archive, assembled by a Pentagon task force in the early 1970s, that shows that confirmed atrocities by U.S. forces in Vietnam were more extensive than was previously known.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The documents detail 320 alleged incidents that were substantiated by Army investigators — not including the most notorious U.S. atrocity, the 1968 My Lai massacre.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Though not a complete accounting of Vietnam war crimes, the archive is the largest such collection to surface to date. About 9,000 pages, it includes investigative files, sworn statements by witnesses and status reports for top military brass.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The records describe recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese — families in their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing. Hundreds of soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders, described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with impunity.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, a Vietnam veteran who served on the task force, says he once supported keeping the records secret but now believes they deserve wide attention in light of alleged attacks on civilians and abuse of prisoners in Iraq.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"We can't change current practices unless we acknowledge the past," says Johns, 78.</blockquote>
<div>
Digging through the LA Times website I find this official government letterhead document:</div>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB-3EFS7VSvvDQzm6p_PqjdcPYuZSKg5Sdc5Dg0FHoIvmiQ8BMnrY6ToGK-ivjj2kf8_zgjvN4KM9YNmfVEDME2zmbwzvkXREO99L4-houok9V8XbQKlIQaUXOsGBuMNZ3PL_R942ikAfR/s1600/Kerry+b.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="331" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB-3EFS7VSvvDQzm6p_PqjdcPYuZSKg5Sdc5Dg0FHoIvmiQ8BMnrY6ToGK-ivjj2kf8_zgjvN4KM9YNmfVEDME2zmbwzvkXREO99L4-houok9V8XbQKlIQaUXOsGBuMNZ3PL_R942ikAfR/s400/Kerry+b.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px;"><a href="http://latimes.image2.trb.com/lanews/media/acrobat/2006-08/24728196.pdf">http://latimes.image2.trb.com/lanews/media/acrobat/2006-08/24728196.pdf</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Other places for information and records are:<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-war-behind-me/vietnam-war-crimes-working-group-files/73345870379">The War Behind Me</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_Crimes_Working_Group_Files">Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Files</a></li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200409130003">Stolen Honor producer Sherwood falsely claimed Winter Soldier investigation "utterly discredited"</a></li>
</ul>
So it looks like John Kerry's statement on April 22, 1971 is not "false" as the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and the author of "To Set The Record Straight" claim. Surprise, surprise! as Gomer Pyle, USMC, used to say.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Did John Kerry portray "American veterans as misfits, drug addicts and baby killers." Here is what he <a href="https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/johnkerrytestimony.html">said </a>on April 22, 1971 that relates to this charge by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth:<br />
<blockquote>
Nothing....</blockquote>
It is possible that "baby killer" is implied by these statements John Kerry made:<br />
<blockquote>
We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.</blockquote>
"Baby killer" or <i>killing of babies</i> was not used in the speech. Kerry does use the term "misfit" - but it is not directed at the veteran:<br />
<blockquote>
"And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.."</blockquote>
There were no comments, other than the acknowledgment of atrocities, implying that vets were "misfits" or "drug addicts."<br />
<br />
The SBV's may not like the fact that John Kerry told us what the problems were in Vietnam. Like he said:<br />
<blockquote>
"We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out."</blockquote>
<div>
Argue all you want about whether he should have kept quiet. Debate on the merits of pulling back the curtain and telling us what really goes on. But if you are going to claim you are "for truth" you need to, you know, actually be "for truth." And another thing....you know that statement "the truth will set you free?" That's what Retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, a Vietnam veteran, meant when he said in the LA Times:</div>
<blockquote>
"We can't change current practices unless we acknowledge the past,"</blockquote>
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-333557045659387682012-04-07T12:34:00.003-05:002012-04-07T15:55:34.494-05:00Does opposing the war, wound those who are not opposed to it?These last few posts have centered on the question of a right to question <i>why</i> I am being demanded to perform a certain act. And in asking, If I disagree with that reason, do I have a right to refuse without being called a "coward" or "bastard", or "horrible?"<br />
<br />
To accept unequivocally what someone else views as right, when it is not right, nor just, makes me what?<br />
<br />
That question is difficult to answer when the <i>acceptance</i> is fundamentally offering your blood for something. I am pretty sure that most people would think it reasonable question why they were being asked to do something with that as its ultimate cost. And as the cost rose the questions of <i>why</i> would become more and more relevant to making a decision. So why is questioning one's duty in a war off-limits or taboo?<br />
<br />
Heck I know the primary answer to that. War takes bodies. Lots and lots of bodies. More bodies than will come from those who see the effort as something they actually <u>want</u> to do. You can't go to war without troops and you can't have the troops you require if some question the purpose and refuse to participate. So it has always been framed as; do your duty for your country.<br />
<br />
Vietnam, however, exposed an ugly side of America and that duty. That is, what we were doing there had more to do with other, less noble reasons, than what we had been told we were spending blood and treasure for.<br />
<br />
When I asked the question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Does my duty include shedding my blood so that Richard Nixon would not be the first president to lose a war, a relevant reason to do so? </i> </blockquote>
It gets even harder to answer when you ask the question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Does my duty to shed my blood for my country's honor make it a relevant reason to do so?</i> </blockquote>
Still harder is to ask the question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Is it my duty to do whatever it takes to provide honor and dignity to those who have fought and died before me in this effort?</i></blockquote>
That last one is what I have come to now understand may be the reason why some - I call them absolutists - are still bothered by those who dared to question our effort and specifically towards those who worked towards ending the war without a definitive "win."<br />
<br />
Here, once again, is what General Brady said in his <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Despite-reports-of-the-day-Tet-battle-was-981815.php">commentary</a> that started me down this journey and these many blog posts:<br />
<blockquote>
The American soldier was never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam; our defeat came from the elite in the courtrooms, the classroom, the cloakrooms and the newsrooms, from cowardly media-phobic politicians and irresponsible, dishonest media and professors from Berkeley to Harvard.</blockquote>
Now let's look at what the Swift Boat Vets have to <a href="http://www.tosettherecordstraight.com/">say</a> about John Kerry's 1971 <a href="https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/johnkerrytestimony.html">speech</a> to congress:<br />
<blockquote>
Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid became the catalyst for an unprecedented political movement by Vietnam veterans who had long resented his false 1971 testimony that American troops routinely committed war crimes.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
During the Vietnam War, the original television networks and the leading liberal newspapers were near the peak of their formidable persuasive powers, able to dominate public opinion to an extent difficult to imagine today. In an age without cable news networks, conservative talk radio or the Internet, they were the only game in town. What these organizations chose to cover became news, and what they ignored did not. They used that power to instill Kerry's false portrait of American veterans as misfits, drug addicts and baby killers into the popular culture.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
When John Kerry made his service in Vietnam the cornerstone of his presidential campaign during the 2004 election, the wounds he had inflicted on millions of Vietnam veterans were re-opened. Many could no longer be silent while a man who had repeated the propaganda of America's enemies rose to the position of Commander-in-Chief.</blockquote>
Now there was another ulterior motive to this, and that was to smear the guy some did not want for president. But the criticism directed at him is nonetheless the same vitriol spewed out towards others who took the same tone. And yes, I chose those words purposely because it pisses me off that some believe I have no right to question the cost in blood and treasure.<br />
<br />
Here is what I take issue with:<br />
<blockquote>
In an age without cable news networks, conservative talk radio or the Internet, they were the only game in town. What these organizations chose to cover became news, and what they ignored did not.</blockquote>
What that statement postulates is this: Had they controlled the message, public opinion would have been different and the outcome would have been different as well. Okay...I'll buy that as a possibility. Now let me ask four questions:<br />
<ol>
<li>Had the news of Tet and General Loan's execution of Nguyen Van Lem been reported by conservative reporters, would there have been a different story reported?</li>
<li>Would the way conservative outlets have reported that news changed public opinion?</li>
<li>If all the reporting was "liberal" and that reporting had "formidable persuasive powers" would replacing it with a "conservative" methodology generate the same "formidable persuasive powers" "to dominate public opinion?"</li>
<li>Had the media and message been controlled and dominated by conservative media, and public opinion come to the same conclusion, would Walter Cronkite, Robert Kennedy, and John Kerry still be seen as pariahs by the right?</li>
</ol>
<div>
Basically, does manipulation of public opinion meet with approval if the end result is to my liking? To assume that one side manipulated public opinion presenting a "false" impression also requires one to assume that the other side would manipulate public opinion by presenting what it deems as the truth. That is, once again, had we shown the film of General Loan shooting Nguyen Van Lem and told the viewers, as Rollins <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1981.0402_114.x/abstract?systemMessage=Due+to+scheduled+maintenance,+access+to+Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+Saturday,+5th+Feb+between+10:00-12:00+GMT">contends</a>:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvLE3ALspqPptWYPfo_UD4XPj4YL9vT6Hk06xK-glgpM3P5ISzYunKstnpW9CSilFN2V5YJxC9inM5ZwZlziXfhCfPvMSxAIC6nJJdD2CWY3eV4qS4eHChfXj1lUuqhOPUa2lSHCG5Y12_/s1600/Rollins.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvLE3ALspqPptWYPfo_UD4XPj4YL9vT6Hk06xK-glgpM3P5ISzYunKstnpW9CSilFN2V5YJxC9inM5ZwZlziXfhCfPvMSxAIC6nJJdD2CWY3eV4qS4eHChfXj1lUuqhOPUa2lSHCG5Y12_/s400/Rollins.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px;">Rollins: Television's Vietnam - The visual language of Television News</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
What would have changed if we had been told the statement that was more than likely designed to convey a context more forgiving of the General? (see blog <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-did-general-nguyen-ngoc-loan.html">post</a>).<br />
<blockquote>
"Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamese friends. Now do you understand? Buddha will understand."</blockquote>
After all, we had been told what the General had said the day before in most major newspapers:<br />
<blockquote>
"They killed many Americans and many of our people."</blockquote>
How would that have changed the picture and made it "more complex?" Well I think I may understand why folks like Rollins and Culbert think so. Look at this statement from Rollins:<br />
<blockquote>
"No one noted at the time - and few noted later - that, at that very moment General Loan was shooting a single ununiformed soldier, North Vietnamese soldiers were systematically executing 2800 South Vietnamese civilian government and public school teachers outside the city of Hue."</blockquote>
Now look at Culbert's <a href="http://elenarazlogova.org/hist615/pdfs/culbert.pdf">paper</a>:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE-2dO9tl-PWbAoi2g2lSgy0X2FAuMdY-n02hdz26P52Xy9s0s875sJExlI6O4DV1eOcBqz-fEwj7f8WWuEfjqOdXdATfL6yhmHkk103XzgnqxIOk3SLq3weNoCvS68vWfTWcgn_lo_AKs/s1600/Rollins+A.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE-2dO9tl-PWbAoi2g2lSgy0X2FAuMdY-n02hdz26P52Xy9s0s875sJExlI6O4DV1eOcBqz-fEwj7f8WWuEfjqOdXdATfL6yhmHkk103XzgnqxIOk3SLq3weNoCvS68vWfTWcgn_lo_AKs/s400/Rollins+A.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px;">Culbert: Television's Visual Impact on Decision Making in the US, 1968</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Now look at General Brady's San Antonio Express News <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Despite-reports-of-the-day-Tet-battle-was-981815.php">article</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"And it was unlikely that the civilians would rise up for a party that massacred 3,000 innocent men, women, children and religious in Hue; some who were buried alive and clubbed to death to save ammunition. Who saw that in our media?"</blockquote>
Here is what I see. Had the "conservative" side of the story been reported, that is, had we been told about the atrocities of the other side we would have concluded that they paled in comparison to what General Loan did.<br />
<br />
If they killed 3000 citizens and we killed 2000, would that context change how we should view what <i>we</i> did?<br />
<br />
Look at the context the New York Times did to try and blunt the force of the Eddie Adams photo:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI6uU78mnkEoxlDLqnii5ZjpNCfLnvPHskvmJUuJrUgXQMCFrKxrm0QQq8kbsjDBqhI51v1vWymS0DvQNjggiMvjDhjtzTwWBedWPyNOuJeghyphenhyphen2e5Tsc-RpdNky80070PyVS_G6SRJUlmp/s1600/NY+Times+a.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI6uU78mnkEoxlDLqnii5ZjpNCfLnvPHskvmJUuJrUgXQMCFrKxrm0QQq8kbsjDBqhI51v1vWymS0DvQNjggiMvjDhjtzTwWBedWPyNOuJeghyphenhyphen2e5Tsc-RpdNky80070PyVS_G6SRJUlmp/s400/NY+Times+a.gif" width="263" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px;">NY Times Feb 2, 1968</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Context <i>was</i> there. It's just that people are a bit smarter than the absolutists, Culbert & Rollins, and the Swift Boat Vets against John Kerry think we are. Look at how Culbert sees the Loan Execution affecting those that share a different view for our continued involvement in the war:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgww6Zp99c81FyW4yVHmsCACB4R7NDbWEHQ9U_vRE_K_VvXKQxmW9Las0UhCZlKLebFo6RdH4Ob-XbJNEeaQrkuOviiCSZZU1mYcI6MoH98rtKlCv67HjaCqaVsD_RcCmYvtfyYoduH8dX-/s1600/Culbert+a.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgww6Zp99c81FyW4yVHmsCACB4R7NDbWEHQ9U_vRE_K_VvXKQxmW9Las0UhCZlKLebFo6RdH4Ob-XbJNEeaQrkuOviiCSZZU1mYcI6MoH98rtKlCv67HjaCqaVsD_RcCmYvtfyYoduH8dX-/s400/Culbert+a.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px;">Culbert: Television's Visual Impact on Decision Making in the US, 1968</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Really? Is that what was shown to us? Was what we saw manipulated so that it "<i>purported</i> to show the actual practice of justice?" Was it "misleading" or did it show factually what it was - an actual execution, that in General Loan's view was not just necessary but demanded?<br />
<blockquote>
"I respect the Vietcong in uniform. They are fighting men like me. People know when they are wounded I take care of them. I see they get to to the hospital. But when they are not in uniform, they are criminals and the rule of war is death." <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">(Harper's April 1972 article "Portrait of an Aging Despot" page 72)</span></blockquote>
Which begs the question: why were people: "looking for a reason to change their views on a matter of policy?"<br />
<br />
Maybe the context was there all the time. Maybe what was said, what we were told to believe, what we held as sacred and honorable, was <u><i>not</i></u> taking place. Maybe all the "elite in the courtrooms, the classroom, the cloakrooms and the newsrooms, from cowardly media-phobic politicians and irresponsible, dishonest media and professors from Berkeley to Harvard" did was show us what we suspected, but hoped wasn't the case.<br />
<br />
Which begs one more question: what would the "cable news networks, conservative talk radio or the Internet" have done differently?<br />
<br />
Was the press "misleading" on the General Loan shooting? Would the conservative press present it differently. or, recognizing its potential impact, suppress it? Is the public better served seeing flag-draped coffins of soldiers killed in combat or should that be off limits?<br />
<br />
Which brings me to the question posed in the title of this blog. Did John Kerry inflict wounds on millions of vets because of what he said on April 22, 1971? Culbert believes the General Loan footage and photograph were misleading. General Brady contends that the media and and "professors from Berkeley to Harvard" were "dishonest." The swift boat vets claim that what John Kerry said to Congress was a "false portrait of American veterans."<br />
<br />
"Misleading", "dishonest", and "false". Which taken together would seem to indicate that the truth has not been told. I think I have presented enough information on what was actually said about General Loan and what the CIA and Jonson knew about the situation in Vietnam. What I have not addressed is Swift Boat Vets for Truth's contention that John Kerry was a big fat liar on April 22, 1971.<br />
<br />
Next post: What did John Kerry say on April 22, 1971 that was false?Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-72121301976730850642012-04-07T12:34:00.000-05:002012-04-07T12:34:00.538-05:00Vacation over...againTook a little bit of time off since my last post. I'm going to finish up with a couple of drafts I started way back then. The next two posts will be pending so as to keep things in a bit of an order.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-8217152158062158982011-07-16T23:05:00.000-05:002012-03-04T16:23:25.867-06:00Do I have a choice?In my last <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/07/my-country-right-or-wrong.html">post</a> I asked:<br />
<blockquote>
And if I do have a duty, is that duty sacrosanct? Do I have a say in how much effort should be put in for that honor?</blockquote>
What if honor was taken out of the question? What if honor is only there because of the effort itself? A gift with purchase kind of arrangement? Start a war, honor comes forward. Can't stop the war in any other way but to preserve honor. The war must continue for the honor or end with honor. Chicken or the egg...<br />
<br />
So here is the real kicker, the one thing I can't seem to rectify or come to a nice clean feeling about. I can't be objective about it, because it pisses me off. But I know<i> I am</i> being objective about it. There is no other way for me to look at it. I must accept it for what it is or ignore it for what it shows.<br />
<br />
Had the war and draft continued, here would have been my choices:<br />
<ul>
<li>Go, if my number was called.</li>
<li>Get a college deferment, and allow someone else to go and fight in my place.</li>
<li>Go to Canada, and let someone else go and fight in my place.</li>
<li>Say "no" and go to jail, and let someone else go and fight in my place.</li>
<li>Pretend something is wrong with me, and let someone else fight in my place.</li>
<li>Enlist in one of the branches that has little chance of seeing combat, and let someone else go and fight in my place.</li>
</ul>
Those would have been my choices. Only one - the first bullet - is fair. All the others put my needs ahead of someone else who was not as smart or savvy or willing to choose another way. <i>It sucks to be you</i> is not something I can live with.<br />
<br />
This, by the way, does not condemn nor condone what anyone else did. Regardless of which choice someone picked who actually had to choose, bullet number was to only fair choice to pick. If x number of men were needed, those that did not show up when called were replace by someone else. Fundamentally, there is no difference between dodging and joining the Texas Air National Guard. Not going required someone else to go in your place. A legal way to get one's self out of combat is no different than burning a draft card. If 150,000 troops are needed, someone else would be in the 150K. It sucks to be you.<br />
<br />
That's the pisser in all of this. Maybe that's what they want with a draft. Can you live with the guilt if you <u>don''t </u>do your duty or you allow some other lesser educated or less connected sap to take your place? Well...can you punk?<br />
<br />
Which bring me back to my question? If I do have a duty, is that duty sacrosanct? Do I have a say in how much effort I should put in to fulfill my duty and/or expunge my guilt?<br />
<br />
At some point the ones who are drafted must have the ability to say: stop! They are the ones that not only shed their blood, limbs, and sanity, but are also the ones put in a situation where the choice is not simple duty and honor, but one of fairness.<br />
<br />
There was no choice for those drafted who began to understand that the Vietnam war was not a war we should be fighting. For me, as I look at it now, to do anything other than go would bring about a profound sense of guilt, especially when I would come to realize that I had passed the buck onto someone else. It sucks to be them, like I said, does not work for me.<br />
<br />
So yeah, I think I have a right to question my country's motives. I think I have a right to go against her wishes for my blood. Even if I am wrong regarding the 'worthiness' of the war, I have that right to do so - since I will be the one asked to be the blood and treasure required to do her bidding.<br />
<br />
And therein lies the problem. Had I concluded that the war should stop, it would have been counter to those in charge who said it should continue. To stop it, I must not participate and must get others to not participate as well. I must now actively be involved in <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sedition">sedition</a>. <i>Hell no I won't go</i> requires many others to get the damn thing to stop.<br />
<br />
But <i>hell no I won't go</i> places me at odds with those, like my father, who think duty is what matters. It puts me at odds with those who think America's honor is at stake. It puts me at odds with my government's requirement of me as one of its citizens. And worst of all, it places the burden on another young man who simply does what their country has asked them to do.<br />
<br />
So the path of least resistance would have been to take my chances with the draft. That would have been the most fair way to go about it. To accept it, do it, and hope for the best. To be a sheep, so to speak. Go where they tell me, do what they tell me. No questions asked, simply do what you have been asked to do. <br />
<br />
As I look at it now, it kind of pisses me off. Mainly because I would not have seen it back then. I would have been a sheep because that's what they want and need their citizens to be. It's not that I don't want to die in war - hell, I don't want to die period. It's the inability to have a say in whether I should, or should not participate. That's the pisser. There is no choice at the time but to fulfill their request for blood and treasure until someone in power stops it. They knew in 1967 that it was not working. They ended it 1973.<br />
<br />
But even to this day, 38 years later, stopping it has never set right with the absolutists who never got their <i>peace with honor</i> or a check mark in the 'win" column. <i>They</i> didn't lose the war for us. It was those that questioned why we were there and if we should continue. And in asking that question, they conclude, our will to win was diminished.<br />
<br />
So if I don't have a choice, is it appropriate to ask: what exactly <i>should doing my duty</i> demand from me when it is demanded of me?<br />
<br />
<br />
Next Post: Does opposing the war wound those who are not opposed to it?<br />
<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-75134851387345098842011-07-12T20:49:00.000-05:002011-07-12T20:49:29.341-05:00My Country Right or WrongAntipathetic: Opposed in nature or character; antagonistic.<br />
<br />
I have been struggling to understand how I <i>should</i> feel about the Vietnam war. As you can see by the number of posts on the topic of Eddie Adams, General Loan, and Tet, I find this topic interesting. But there is something else driving it, and it's only been in this last week that I am coming to terms with it.<br />
<br />
I have been reading Michael Sandel's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Justice-Whats-Right-Thing-Do/dp/0374180652">book</a>: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? and was fascinated by his chapter on John Rawl's "veil of ignorance" theory on how to come up with a fair and impartial point of view.<br />
<blockquote>The veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. (<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/">1</a>)</blockquote>To be objective, which is what I strive for, I need to put aside the fact that it could have been me over there. The fact that it wasn't does not remove that fact. And with that fact, I know that how I feel about the war is not objective, even if my conclusion is valid.<br />
<br />
I have gone back in time. I am back at my childhood home, eating dinner with my family. I am driving from Garden Grove California to Carpinteria Beach near Santa Barbara with my family. I am young - but old enough to understand.<br />
<br />
I don't recall ever getting into a discussion with my folks regarding the war. We must have talked about it, we talked a lot during dinners. My folks, especially my father, share very black and white views of the world. I remember their disgust for hippies, and one of our relatives who dodged the draft, if I recall. I don't recall anything else except my dad stating a number of times that the reason you do your duty is because your country asked you to. Your country right or wrong he would say.<br />
<br />
Now that I am older, I understand a bit better why my dad and others feel that this premise is the guiding reason you do your duty. It's not your place to question when called on. He did it in Korea, his father did it in World War I, my mom's uncles did it. And if the time came for me in Vietnam, the expectation would be that I would do my duty too.<br />
<br />
My dad never saw combat, something he regrets, especially when he is with his friends who were called over before the Korean war ended. Maybe had he seen combat he would have had a different opinion. Most likely not. My great uncle Joe lost an arm in D-day. He never spoke about the war and forbid my aunt, who came form Nazi occupied Germany, to speak about the war as well. I am sure if I had talked to him about Vietnam he might have told me something. Most likely not.<br />
<br />
Had the war not ended in 1973 and continued on, when I turned 18, I would have been of draft age. And that's the angst I feel right now when I ask my 54 year old self, what would you do now, without your 18 year old veil of ignorance on? (yes, I know that's not what that term means). Hindsight is 20/20. So let me put a figurative veil of ignorance back on and try to look at it objectively.<br />
<br />
The problem with the premise of "my country right or wrong" is that it assumes that the "wrong" is an honest mistake or miscalculation. It does not assume manipulation by people to further their own gains and egos.<br />
<br />
I am faced with this knowledge of what it was, as I struggle to form my opinion: Should my duty to my country be based on a <i>real</i> need or the need expressed by those who hold power and sway over me? Did Richard Nixon prolong the war because he did not want to be "the first President to lose a war?" (<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274/ns/nightly_news/t/nixon-targeted-kerry-anti-war-views/">2</a>) Was the desire for "peace with honor" a reason to continue throwing more blood and treasure at it till that objective was achieved? (<a href="http://watergate.info/nixon/73-01-23_vietnam.shtml">3</a>)<br />
<br />
Did I owe it to Nixon, or any other president, to shed my blood? Was our honor worth giving up my life? Was this what my dad wanted for me? No, I don't think so. What he, and so many others wanted, was for me to concentrate on the <i>duty</i> part. The reason you went was irrelevant when your country called you. That's what young men did. My country, right or wrong!<br />
<br />
But that's a romantic notion of war and duty. It assumes nobility, purpose, rationality. Vietnam, as we know now, and started to figure out as it became more and more a cluster, was not a traditional war. And this is where the dynamics in play become antipathetic.<br />
<ul><li>If I am to perform my duty for my country, shouldn't my effort be for a worthy and rational cause?</li>
<li>And if it turns out that the premise for the cause was miscalculated, should that miscalculation be rectified?</li>
<li>And if rectifying it, we choose to end it, does that make the effort up to that point a waste?</li>
<li>Does my country's need for honor require of me the same effort as for her defense?</li>
</ul>Where it became antipathetic was the requirement to rectify it was pitted against the honor of those who had fought, died, and suffered. Should it be called a mistake, as John Kerry did: in 1971?<br />
<blockquote>Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doen'st have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say they we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."</blockquote><blockquote>We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations... (<a href="https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/johnkerrytestimony.html">4</a>)</blockquote>It can only become antipathetic because guys like General Brady honestly and truly need to believe::<br />
<blockquote>The American soldier was never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam; our defeat came from the elite in the courtrooms, the classroom, the cloakrooms and the newsrooms, from cowardly media-phobic politicians and irresponsible, dishonest media and professors from Berkeley to Harvard. (<a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Despite-reports-of-the-day-Tet-battle-was-981815.php#ixzz1CXZOd9y2">5</a>)</blockquote>General Brady has no choice but to voice his displeasure of having his honor taken from him. Honor that is important to him and others. Honor worth dying for. Honor worth perusing, regardless the cost. To call the war a mistake, makes the nullifies the effort. There is no honor in a lost cause, in a mistake. "We were never defeated" General Brady states, but those bastards that looked behind the curtain took from him something he was willing to die for: his country right, or wrong. Duty...honor.<br />
<br />
And now it becomes personal once again. Do I have a duty to my country to give my life for something that is no longer rational? Do I have a duty to others who have fulfilled their duty, regardless of that rational? Do I have a duty to uphold the honor of those who did fight? Do I have a duty to them?<br />
<br />
And if I do have a duty, is that duty sacrosanct? Do I have a say in how much effort should be put in for that honor? Does honor and duty trump the reality in play? What if the needs of those who hold power and sway or nothing more than a want? What if it is ego, pride, profit, or promotion dictating what my country wants from me?<br />
<br />
Can I question it? Can I disagree without being called cowardly, horrible, or bastards? Can I admit it was a mistake without taking honor from those who fought and those who need purpose attached to their effort?<br />
<br />
I think I can. I think it can be done without it being antipathetic with the views of General Brady. For this to be done, however, requires us to lose the romantic notion of war, and to see duty as just that; duty. I am called and I answer. And if it turns out you mislead me, manipulated me, or made a terrible miscalculation, my duty is no less noble than anyone else s effort. And that duty goes above and beyond the battle field. We have a duty to point out the mistakes of this country when it has the power to call on its sons and daughters to give up their life for it.<br />
<br />
My country right or wrong? No...I don't think it's that simplistic.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-40113004173647027952011-07-12T08:20:00.001-05:002011-07-12T08:20:02.360-05:00There but for the grace of God go I....<div style="text-align: center;">Come on mothers throughout the land,</div><div style="text-align: center;">Pack your boys off to Vietnam.</div><div style="text-align: center;">Come on fathers, and don't hesitate</div><div style="text-align: center;">To send your sons off before it's too late.</div><div style="text-align: center;">And you can be the first ones in your block</div><div style="text-align: center;">To have your boy come home in a box. </div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Country Joe And The Fish, wrote that and made the <u><i>Vietnam Song</i></u> famous during Woodstock. Gimme and "F"...Gimme a "U"...</div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">I thought about that song when I started writing these posts on if our effort was worth the cost. Was the condemnation of Kitt, Cronkite, Kennedy, King, the hippies justified? Were they the one's who "lost" the war for us, or, like I believe now, the war was never ours to win since South Vietnam had nothing to offer its people other than being <i>not-communists</i>, which for a peasant, means very little.</div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">I want to go back to Carl von Clausewitz understanding of war:</div><blockquote>[T]he use of power involves two factors. The first is the strength of available means, which may be measured somewhat by numbers (although not entirely). The second factor is the strength of the will which can not be specifically measured (only estimated) as it is intangible. Once a state has gained an approximation of the enemy's strength of resistance it can review its own means and adjust them upwards accordingly in an effort to gain the advantage. As the enemy will also be doing this, it too becomes reciprocal. [third reciprocal action] (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war">1</a>)</blockquote>We had the strength, no doubt about that. But in Vietnam, it really did not matter how strong our military was, without the other factor needed to meet our objectives - a stable south Vietnam government - all our military could do is keep the bad guys at bay, which Tet showed in 1968, was not going to be easy.<br />
<br />
Now that we knew, and by "we" I mean the people of the US, Carl von Clausewitz's second factor kicks in:<br />
<blockquote>The second factor is the strength of the will which can not be specifically measured (only estimated) as it is intangible. Once a state has gained an approximation of the enemy's strength of resistance it can review its own means and adjust them upwards accordingly in an effort to gain the advantage.</blockquote>Walter Cronkite and Robert Kennedy saw what it was going to take, and understood how difficult, or most likely saw it as impossible, for the United States to "win" this conflict. Which is why Robert Kennedy said in his February 1968 speech:<br />
<blockquote>For years we have been told that the measure of our success and progress in Vietnam was<br />
increasing security and control for the population. Now we have seen that none of the population<br />
is secure and no area is under sure control. </blockquote><blockquote>Four years ago when we only had about 30,000 troops in Vietnam, the Vietcong were unable to mount the assaults on cities they have now conducted against our enormous forces. At one time a suggestion that we protect enclaves was derided. Now there are no protected enclaves. </blockquote><blockquote>This has not happened because our men are not brave or effective, because they are. It is because we have misconceived the nature of the war: It is because we have sought to resolve by military might a conflict whose issue depends upon the will and conviction of the South Vietnamese people. It is like sending a lion to halt an epidemic of jungle rot. (<a href="http://teach.yauger.net/us/vietnam/rfkvietnam.pdf">2</a>)</blockquote>I think that was a reasonable and fair analogy. It is also an accurate understanding of what was happening in Vietnam. So if we can't "win" with our military alone, how much "means" should we put into it as we "adjust upwards accordingly?"<br />
<br />
This is where it hits close to home for me. I could have been the "means" had we continued. Without fully understanding my reasoning for taking exception to General Patrick Brady's San Antonio Express News <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Despite-reports-of-the-day-Tet-battle-was-981815.php">article</a>, I understood when I read it that he was incorrect in his premise:<br />
<blockquote>[O]ur defeat came from the elite in the courtrooms, the classroom, the cloakrooms and the newsrooms, from cowardly media-phobic politicians and irresponsible, dishonest media and professors from Berkeley to Harvard.</blockquote>General Brady is an absolutist (in addition to being delusional). Had we pressed on; "Unbelievably, there was no military follow-up." would that have changed anything? I can't say, but neither can he. But the fact still remains that we could not achieve our objectives with the military alone. Unless you don't want to believe the CIA's <a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/041/04114191009a.pdf">analysis</a> in May, 1968:<br />
<blockquote>"The situation thereafter will largely depend, as it has in the past, on the question of the will to persist of either side rather than on the attainment of an overwhelming military victory."</blockquote>General Brady, as an absolutist, thinks the lion can cure jungle rot. Walter Cronkite and Robert Kennedy, as realists, understand that the lion cannot. <br />
<br />
General Brady is one of "those who said that we could win and must" and Cronkite, Kennedy, Kitt, and "the elite in the courtrooms, the classroom, the cloakrooms and the newsrooms, from cowardly media-phobic politicians and irresponsible, dishonest media and professors from Berkeley to Harvard (<a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/177/1770205053.pdf">3</a>)" are "those who said that even if we could win we should not and that the military considerations were a complete <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfuscation">obfuscation</a> of the basic issues." (<a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/177/1770205053.pdf">4 page 2</a>)<br />
<br />
General Brady is free to express his reasons as to why he thinks we could win and should have continued on, something he has not done other than denigrate those who share the other view and make up stories in an effort to right a wrong that is there but not there to the degree he thinks it is. How he feels about what took place is uniquely his own, and. like for me, his objectivity can be compromised by factors that fall close to home.<br />
<br />
Without a crystal ball there is no way to determine what course taken - or not taken - would have resulted in a better outcome. What we do know for sure is that the enemy had the capability of making us work for that victory. That's where Carl von Clausewitz's "it can review its own means and adjust them upwards accordingly in an effort to gain the advantage" comes in. Evaluate and re-evaluate. Left to General Brady, Kid Rock, Hawks, and absolutists, the means is "whatever it takes." <br />
<br />
In 1968 I was 11 years old. When I was 12, Country Joe was telling me what could await me. When I was 16, Richard Nixon finally put an end to "whatever it takes."<br />
<br />
There but for the grace of God go I.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next Post: My Country Right or Wrong<br />
<br />
...Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-12630870732485324992011-07-10T09:54:00.004-05:002011-07-17T21:03:51.041-05:00In case you don't understand the lingo, that's marijuana."Continuing on with the theme of two sides to a coin.....<br />
<br />
A colleague of David Culbert <a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/177/1770205053.pdf">wrote</a> this to him in July 1978, regarding an essay he wrote on the Adam's photo as well as a proposal for a grant he and Peter Rollins were submitting for the film they were working on.<br />
<blockquote>You seem to be deliberately ignoring the ways in which government press releases, especially the releases from the Saigon government, but from Washington as well, were propagandistic in their insistence upon the corner being imminently turned, the tunnel-end being imminently reached, the democracy of southeast Asia being imminently saved (as though it had ever existed in the first place). </blockquote><blockquote>In short, the government was doing what you and Peter [Rollins] seem to be doing: acting as though the military truth were the determining context, and, Dave, I swear that readers and viewers will remember that the context was one in which the traumatic divisions that tore the country apart was not one in which there was a division between those who thought we were winning and could win on the one hand and those who thought we weren' t winning and couldn't win on the other, but between those who said that we could win and must and those who said that even if we could win we should not and that the military considerations were a complete obfuscation of the basic issues. </blockquote>What I like about this paragraph is the author's contention that the division in the country over the Vietnam war was between "those who said that we could win and must and those who said that even if we could win we should not."<br />
<br />
What happens, as far as I can see, is that this Highlander - there can be only one - reality pits one against the other. How do we handle a situation like that? How about democratically, you know, put it to a vote? We don't vote on war. Our elected officials - who we did voted for - decide, and they decided that <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/50/messages/1017.html">blood and treasure</a> should be spent trying to meet our <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/07/good-guys-government-equally-important.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">objectives</span></a> in Vietnam. And, as was pointed out:<br />
<blockquote>"[i]f we stick to it long enough - and this is not a short term proposition - [we were] confident that we shall have reasonable success in achieving our objectives."</blockquote>See that word "reasonable" in that sentence? Lets look at how that's <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable">defined</a>:<br />
<blockquote>"Having modest or moderate expectations; not making unfair demands"</blockquote>In other words, based on what we set out to do, and what we knew about the enemy (see post), sticking with it should bring about the success of those objectives.<br />
<br />
And then came Tet, the Eddie Adam's photo, and a reevaluation of the cost associated with achieving that reasonable success. You know that saying "freedom isn't free?" Well that's a tacit way of telling you it is going to cost blood and treasure.<br />
<br />
Did "Uncle Walt" and the use of the Eddie Adam's change the hearts and minds of Americans to go against the war, or was it simply more a realization by more and more people that "even if we could win we should not?"<br />
<br />
Here is what George Bailey <a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/177/1770110001.pdf">told</a> Rollins in an interview for the film (Lichty also talks about Walter Cronkite's impact) :<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNJG_Q-sn2JkeSGG9y2KLQvj38cuEn1B3gqF6YyR10U7qN9Ds1ufLNMwOZlsAvZIOkGyaT42OVz_bHnb4241Vf8pMfBRYCiJDThBkUGj9nIFgqGH4KRmsNq72pZZS2zqiz04ZJKb4k6H10/s1600/Bailey+Rollins+interview+1.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNJG_Q-sn2JkeSGG9y2KLQvj38cuEn1B3gqF6YyR10U7qN9Ds1ufLNMwOZlsAvZIOkGyaT42OVz_bHnb4241Vf8pMfBRYCiJDThBkUGj9nIFgqGH4KRmsNq72pZZS2zqiz04ZJKb4k6H10/s400/Bailey+Rollins+interview+1.GIF" width="400" /></a></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOesTq31JkCllOFuvNRFLwWCqh4BYJliN5d5dqSGItvN0rumq_WBm0H8Xqc6bX2qb9TjcYJDKyKEWxbfOkHLHcxZufn3XZJUmqqvNJV2-k68Ca7qn6B-dCoSSMaszVxz34sb5oDSxxtuWm/s1600/Bailey+Rollins+interview+2.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOesTq31JkCllOFuvNRFLwWCqh4BYJliN5d5dqSGItvN0rumq_WBm0H8Xqc6bX2qb9TjcYJDKyKEWxbfOkHLHcxZufn3XZJUmqqvNJV2-k68Ca7qn6B-dCoSSMaszVxz34sb5oDSxxtuWm/s400/Bailey+Rollins+interview+2.GIF" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Rollins interview with Prof Lawrence Lichty and George Bailey</td></tr>
</tbody></table>This assessment on the cost - and to whom it is applied to - had been going on way before Tet. Case in point was a confrontation between the actress <a href="http://www.earthakitt.com/">Eartha Kitt</a> and Lady Bird Johnson (<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=0yGW93SyFRsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Lady+Bird:+A+Biography+of+Mrs.+Johnson&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=e-UVToPhB6600AHQ0ZRi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">from</a>: Lady Bird: A Biography of Mrs. Johnson By Jan Jarboe Russell):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgnE9rUhMQrDCD4autE7dZqd_WxnTjYDMy0i549YRNFsKWujh0OWwhn45GaJ7Oy9V_lemtlw0MhWnEiIjrcBRVAJbPVxLWqxA8yYbF6qFfW7QPq1hIE468vsdZT0FYeNfAIRLz0v2YkV_3/s1600/Lady+Bird.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgnE9rUhMQrDCD4autE7dZqd_WxnTjYDMy0i549YRNFsKWujh0OWwhn45GaJ7Oy9V_lemtlw0MhWnEiIjrcBRVAJbPVxLWqxA8yYbF6qFfW7QPq1hIE468vsdZT0FYeNfAIRLz0v2YkV_3/s400/Lady+Bird.GIF" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Before Tet we weren't quite ready to hear about what the cost of the war was doing to those who were the "blood" part of the blood and treasure commitment to achieve our objectives, and Eartha Kitt paid the price - a la the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.reut/">Dixie Chicks</a> - for being "ill-mannered negro."<br />
<br />
I guess what I am struggling with in all of this is how should I feel about it now, compared with how I felt about it before I started doing my research on this? It's not as easy as it should be because I am also troubled by my ignorance as a teenager heading into draft age who really was clueless about what it was all about. That's where this is heading for me now. I was, back in 1973, while the war was still going on, sixteen. Had it continued I would have been that "blood" my fellow Americans were willing to spend to meet our objectives.<br />
<br />
It hits close to home now, and that makes my objectivity towards the war, Tet, General Loan, and the absolutists tainted. <br />
<br />
Should my near-miss play into how I see the war? Should it dictate how I feel about our effort, my government, my military, and General Loan?<br />
<br />
It can't help but not affect my view of the war, which is exactly the same situation General Loan was put in on February 1st, 1968 when Nguyen Van Lem was brought to him with hands tied behind his back and wearing civilian clothes.<br />
<br />
How one sees a situation is uniquely their own. How dare we punish Eartha Kitt for voicing how she saw the conflict in Vietnam. How dare we criticize Walter Cronkite and Robert Kennedy for speaking what they saw as the truth. How dare we degrade the men and woman who willingly and unwillingly offered their blood to give us "reasonable success in achieving our objectives." And how dare we condemn General Loan for this one particular act - committed during a war, during an invasion - elevating ii up to a classification of "moral turpitude."<br />
<br />
Condemnation is deserved for those who ignore the cost and reality that comes in to play when you go to war.<br />
<br />
As Charles Heston said in Plant of the Apes: Damn them! Damn them to hell!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguxS2fqjTDiBX83sx8KewrYrLgzhLfMOV7azEfkdXJYatnzch_w3QZ-JmQTOkLwzSJmymZUkNMriRlUfcxWxDz3DZtcNDXVpECpOIGFuQjNdHHT7MMLo9_k3jyR5Ip3U3hy0Wc_a30BuTB/s1600/planetofapes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguxS2fqjTDiBX83sx8KewrYrLgzhLfMOV7azEfkdXJYatnzch_w3QZ-JmQTOkLwzSJmymZUkNMriRlUfcxWxDz3DZtcNDXVpECpOIGFuQjNdHHT7MMLo9_k3jyR5Ip3U3hy0Wc_a30BuTB/s320/planetofapes.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
Next Post: There but for the grace of God go I....<br />
...Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-35314645497869240682011-07-08T09:42:00.034-05:002011-07-09T17:30:43.614-05:00The "Good Guys" Government: Equally important as the military effort in winning the warStarting at the end of the memo....<br />
<br />
Sometime before July 19, 1967, Ambassador Bunker <a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/001/0010126011.pdf">met </a>with Secretary McNamar and Secretary Katzenbach, concluding his meeting with this:<br />
<blockquote>"I believe that we are gradually achieving out aims in Vietnam. If we stick to it long enough - and this is not a short term proposition - I am confident that we shall have reasonable success in achieving our objectives."</blockquote>And just what were "our objectives?" (<a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/001/0010126011.pdf">1</a>)<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioWBVhn8_mlW1C6JlsdWsPfJ8Jurso1WGKsQru9_kznJxKT3S0VwUrX4nKp2qdrALkEVy9wB36CeOsPnayy2C0PMMSVFECPAH6KoRZ3AjR6-WjqgfB_dN8IiDqHg1mU3XHXgBagTtzFjec/s1600/Objectives+-+1.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioWBVhn8_mlW1C6JlsdWsPfJ8Jurso1WGKsQru9_kznJxKT3S0VwUrX4nKp2qdrALkEVy9wB36CeOsPnayy2C0PMMSVFECPAH6KoRZ3AjR6-WjqgfB_dN8IiDqHg1mU3XHXgBagTtzFjec/s400/Objectives+-+1.GIF" width="363" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Meeting between Ambassador Bunker and Secretary McNamar and Secretary Katzenbach,</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Okay, so that's the objective, all we need to do is "stick to it long enough." Simple!<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>Now let's look at the reality....</div><div><br />
</div><div>Remember that "good guy" General Loan? Well he plays into this reality for us. Let's look at what we knew to be true in July 1967: (<a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/001/0010126011.pdf">1</a>)</div><div><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisrUSd627EU59QYJtZez-BKYKxSKm_b2GaEA7Agrm9P4Cy-O0wsBnbngDNZbpap9b4wRHrmLparvU8dtNmubk9LMzunme4SnRpYtxrZx_CYL3H-clFj_GFqUqTOIrcOjNSxOWxzGFdrSfZ/s1600/Objectives+-+2.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisrUSd627EU59QYJtZez-BKYKxSKm_b2GaEA7Agrm9P4Cy-O0wsBnbngDNZbpap9b4wRHrmLparvU8dtNmubk9LMzunme4SnRpYtxrZx_CYL3H-clFj_GFqUqTOIrcOjNSxOWxzGFdrSfZ/s400/Objectives+-+2.GIF" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Meeting between Ambassador Bunker and Secretary McNamar and Secretary Katzenbach,<br />
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div>So we are fighting a "limited war" locked in a "bitter and savage struggle with an enemy determined, disciplined. well equipped and resourceful." And in the midst of all this we are trying to do is carry out a "social revolution" in Vietnam. Whether we should, or should not, is not going to be discussed here. I am trying to look at the <i>reality</i> in play to show why the view of our involvement as "whatever it takes" would not work in Vietnam. Tet and the Eddie Adam's photo did not change the <i>reality</i> that "whatever it takes" would take and take and take without ever bringing to fruition our objectives. Time, on the other hand, was on the enemy's side:</div><div><br />
</div><div>The objectives we set out to achieve are not unworkable, however, the priorities we were to focus on in an effort to meet those objectives were a <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pipe+dream">pipe dream</a> to say the least. (<a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/001/0010126011.pdf">1</a>)</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZYjh5o8N20qILBydHfX_ZW0c_LRJwNJjUVKHwXeMsz4UsumC3I4cPJuTuMBKkSIvfaRCI38AqzTksZ0cse2MLbNpTCzRM3LoqYwv6tHLbVE2NbWMqcBw91ur8gX8b_Gk4mk6yRyho2pnM/s1600/Objectives+-+3.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZYjh5o8N20qILBydHfX_ZW0c_LRJwNJjUVKHwXeMsz4UsumC3I4cPJuTuMBKkSIvfaRCI38AqzTksZ0cse2MLbNpTCzRM3LoqYwv6tHLbVE2NbWMqcBw91ur8gX8b_Gk4mk6yRyho2pnM/s400/Objectives+-+3.GIF" width="267" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Meeting between Ambassador Bunker and Secretary McNamar and Secretary Katzenbach,</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div>But above all that, there was no way to bring about a "social revolution" as long as Ky and Loan were part of the process. (<a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/001/0010121015.pdf">2</a>)</div><div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCb34iIhyog4RtsYF9XsRc0JkMEOcDEBxrTb-tPzniZ_ymlhdcD_Zt_0MsyBAMfq1XFr3Tx2UcOncRRzfuEzTXz_r2kQWHJryr-xfdDfC9Xrb6WuF079b0f0RMacXchT0NPC7ef0Q6F8kQ/s1600/Objectives+-+4.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="325" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCb34iIhyog4RtsYF9XsRc0JkMEOcDEBxrTb-tPzniZ_ymlhdcD_Zt_0MsyBAMfq1XFr3Tx2UcOncRRzfuEzTXz_r2kQWHJryr-xfdDfC9Xrb6WuF079b0f0RMacXchT0NPC7ef0Q6F8kQ/s400/Objectives+-+4.GIF" width="400" /></a></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn9y9E6bSASn8_U1envwPnU9rlqLyIQFhtebWEe3ln1fLjdP4zdiFtUIWU7zALt1Kkya3dGxHs4P9-bFY6fjvWGEWmNhB1K3PEeQfUI-ZmHbixHgAqAb5sozX74ckmn2dvGamdl2xhpkEo/s1600/Objectives+-+5.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn9y9E6bSASn8_U1envwPnU9rlqLyIQFhtebWEe3ln1fLjdP4zdiFtUIWU7zALt1Kkya3dGxHs4P9-bFY6fjvWGEWmNhB1K3PEeQfUI-ZmHbixHgAqAb5sozX74ckmn2dvGamdl2xhpkEo/s400/Objectives+-+5.GIF" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Herewith a first view of Thieu after the [Ky/Thieu ticket] deal</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div>What Ky, Loan, and their allies wanted was different than what Thieu wanted. But there was no way there would be ANY government in Vietnam unless both sides joined together and each got something.</div><div><br />
</div><div>This was the <i>reality</i> we were faced with and why there would be no way to "win" this war. This was not a defeat-your-enemy-and-win-battles type of war like we were used to. Even the fact that it was gorilla tactics and house-to-house fighting, had nothing to do with making this war un-winnable. Simply put, the amount of effort that would be required to vanquish the enemy would do little if the "good guys" were not really <i>good</i> guys. (<a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/001/0010126011.pdf">1</a>)</div><div><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhbnxntIi6DE64JSoAQ-NY7KY1s9O9GJYhz6Epzrmp0ZLMR13Az8Nr5q9LKPflO_yDITIO6muDU9AW_x-buTz-9E0sHhZN5RTg1_6NtJQIqo5mQmVxIobjlOyS4pekt3Par41J0_Ybx7YY/s1600/Objectives+-+6.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhbnxntIi6DE64JSoAQ-NY7KY1s9O9GJYhz6Epzrmp0ZLMR13Az8Nr5q9LKPflO_yDITIO6muDU9AW_x-buTz-9E0sHhZN5RTg1_6NtJQIqo5mQmVxIobjlOyS4pekt3Par41J0_Ybx7YY/s400/Objectives+-+6.GIF" width="335" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Meeting between Ambassador Bunker and Secretary McNamar and Secretary Katzenbach,<br />
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div><br />
</div><div>What was known in 1967, before Tet, was that this war required not just the military aspect to achieve our goals, but a political one as well. Further evidence that the proponents of stay the course would never get the "win" they wanted.<br />
<br />
What were the political realities of Vietnam in 1967 that would work against our objectives and priorities... those things we needed to see to bring about a "win?" (<a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/001/0010126011.pdf">1</a>)<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMaomxnoTpKYumo6FNYwqyeY0yD8QGY2HgzeqbdIaAQYPb8JW1e7wHcYn4Ho5nlNXp_aVQ1_AY7ChN4uO60ZEAk14Dz_y95EG-KMCODD715zDxjphnHqQXYGHS5Gc7-MSyzdXIrGALq0vN/s1600/Objectives+-+7.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMaomxnoTpKYumo6FNYwqyeY0yD8QGY2HgzeqbdIaAQYPb8JW1e7wHcYn4Ho5nlNXp_aVQ1_AY7ChN4uO60ZEAk14Dz_y95EG-KMCODD715zDxjphnHqQXYGHS5Gc7-MSyzdXIrGALq0vN/s400/Objectives+-+7.GIF" width="276" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Meeting between Ambassador Bunker and Secretary McNamar and Secretary Katzenbach,<br />
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Why we thought we could overcome the political realities AND fight an enemy that was "determined, disciplined. well equipped and resourceful." has a lot to do with our arrogance as a superpower. We knew in 1967 that the military aspect could only go so far.<br />
<br />
So why to this day do some - including scholars and Generals - insist on looking at Tet in terms of <i>winning the battle but losing the war?</i> They seem hellbent on getting the "true" story out...if only the American people knew the<i> real story</i> instead of the one presented to them as microcosms of destruction. Look what David Culbert has to <a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/177/1770106001.pdf">say</a> about this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHz_R5IT1BIyezs4H0-H0aNw4QNLWokyZsDrldUpF6UFw-UXiIAGiZXXCL5ekZEWuOd8a1i5g4a2ltFtD3USZtAjPT86ssOnDkwwPYLlM3lQyCPcCqJgOZC0YpSkpCOi9T7pKO4LtcdlzC/s1600/Objectives+-+8.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="257" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHz_R5IT1BIyezs4H0-H0aNw4QNLWokyZsDrldUpF6UFw-UXiIAGiZXXCL5ekZEWuOd8a1i5g4a2ltFtD3USZtAjPT86ssOnDkwwPYLlM3lQyCPcCqJgOZC0YpSkpCOi9T7pKO4LtcdlzC/s400/Objectives+-+8.GIF" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">TV Interview with David Culbert</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Did the North Vietnamese gain a "stupendous psychological victory" here in the US or was what happened during Tet the inevitable harbinger of exactly what should have been understood and known in 1967 by the American people? Are we that gullible that we would could not formulate an understanding of what we saw based on what we had been told. The North's victory on changing our will was the result of a fabricated reality perpetuated by our government.<br />
<br />
In other words, had our<i> veil of ignorance</i> been off and we known about the true strength of the enemy, the understanding that they would be in it for the long-haul, the dysfunction of the "good guys" we needed to meet our objectives, and the lack of understanding we had for what the Vietnamese people were thinking (see page <a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/001/0010126011.pdf">28</a>), would we have concluded anything different after Tet in 1968?<br />
<br />
I don't think so. Now I'm not talking about how we felt about it at the time, or how we feel about it now. I am talking about how we would conclude it objectively. Had we been kept in the dark or shown a more positive picture would that have been better for us? Better for the absolutist point of view, maybe.<br />
<br />
All Tet and General Loan did was rip off the facade that had been put in place to bolster our own need for a <i>psychological victory</i> in order to keep Carl von Clausewitz's "strength of will" firm and undaunted so that we could "stick to it long enough" to have a chance at meeting our objectives.<br />
<br />
Any other conclusion, in my opinion, is a logical fantasy.<br />
<br />
Next post: In case you don't understand the lingo, that's marijuana."<br />
<br />
.</div>Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-9965152414070431702011-07-07T11:01:00.001-05:002011-07-09T17:31:28.118-05:00Kid Rock, Carl von Clausewitz, O'Brien, and General LoanI read an old copy of Maxim my son had. It had an interview with Kid Rock, dated 10/8/2007, in which he is asked the question: How would you run the war differently? Here is his <a href="http://www.maxim.com/amg/movies/articles/56739/iconkidrock.html">response</a>:<br />
<blockquote>I’d kick the media out. War’s not pretty, and you can’t fight a war diplomatically. We didn’t win the Revolutionary War like that. We were the original terrorists, ducking behind buildings and crap. As harsh as this sounds—and I’m sure I’ll get crap for it—if somebody kills an American soldier in a certain section of town, I’d blow up that section of town. I’d do what the Israelis do and take out 50 motherfuckers. I’d say, "Next American who gets killed, 50 more innocent people. Start giving up insurgents or we’ll wipe out your fucking block." You gotta fight fire with fire.</blockquote><div>Would you not conclude that Kid Rock is an ardent believer in Carl von Clausewitz's <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war">first reciprocal action</a></i>:</div><blockquote>"Therefore, war in its most natural manner would involve each state continually reciprocating each other's use of force (plus some) to maintain a superiority, until both were using violence to its utmost extent."</blockquote>Could one reasonably infer that Kid Rock <i>believes</i> that war allows a nation to "fight to war's natural extremes," that is, to perpetuate acts of violence without compromise" and "without political and moral moderation." (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war">1</a>)<br />
<br />
And, if that is true, if confronted with a hypothetical, he would have to answer in a similar manner as he did when he stated " "Next American who gets killed, 50 more innocent people. Start giving up insurgents or we’ll wipe out your fucking block."<br />
<br />
Since he has already stated unequivocally that it is quite acceptable to kill 50 more innocent people, had he been asked, like Winston was in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four">1984</a>, he would quite eagerly respond exactly the same way, would he not?<br />
<blockquote>O'Brien: In general terms, what are you prepared to do?' </blockquote><blockquote>Kid Rock: Anything that we are capable of.</blockquote><blockquote>O'Brien: You are prepared to give your lives?</blockquote><blockquote>Kid Rock: Yes.</blockquote><blockquote>O'Brien: You are prepared to commit murder?</blockquote><blockquote>Kid Rock: Yes.</blockquote><blockquote>O'Brien: To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?</blockquote><blockquote>Kid Rock: Yes.</blockquote><blockquote>O'Brien: If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulphuric acid in a child's face -- are you prepared to do that?</blockquote><blockquote>Kid Rock: Yes.</blockquote>So if Kid Rock, who has never been to war, who has never been in a battle, who has never had to decide who must suffer, or witness the pain and agony of the aftermath, finds it so fucking easy to condemn 50 innocent people to death for the actions perpetuated by others, doesn't it seem plausible that General Loan's actions on February 1st, 1968 could have been the result of seeing the situation through that same prism?<br />
<br />
If Kid Rock can find it reasonable to kill 50 innocents because one of our soldiers was killed, isn't it also reasonable that General Loan could execute an enemy soldier who had just invaded his city? I mean look at it objectively. Our soldiers are basically an invading force in another country. Some of the people who live there don't want us there in THEIR country. They have every right in the world to try and kill us. General Loan, on the other hand, was in HIS city which had just been invaded by others who were trying to force their will on him.<br />
<br />
Now, look at the definition of <a href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/moral-turpitude/">moral turpitude</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience. </blockquote>When looking at what Kid Rock <b><u>would do</u></b> and what General Loan <b><u>did do</u></b>, which one meets the definition more succinctly?<br />
<br />
Now you may be thinking that Kid Rock was just being boastful, that he would never do that. I say he would, not directly, but indirectly. Most likely he would pussy out when it came time to pouring the sulfuric acid onto the child, or shooting 50 old ladies and children in the marketplace. That's what most of these "fight fire with fire" types become when the situation calls for action; pussies.<br />
<br />
Instead he would turn a blind eye to what was happening, play nudge-nudge with those that would carry it out, and hide under his flag poncho as others did his dirty work in furtherance of Carl von Clausewitz' first reciprocal action. He would find a General Loan and unleash him under the rhetoric that "War’s not pretty, and you can’t fight a war diplomatically."<br />
<br />
This is one side of the coin. Like it or not, this is an absolute theology as distasteful and real as that of an absolute war. On the other side of that coin, however, is something different. Not, as one would think, the complete opposite to what is absolute. No, this side of the coin is a bit more nuanced, a bit more reasonable, a bit more humane.<br />
<br />
Look once again at what Robert Kennedy <a href="http://teach.yauger.net/us/vietnam/rfkvietnam.pdf">said</a> on February 8th, 1968:<br />
<blockquote>Nor does it serve the interests of America to fight this war as if moral standards could be subordinated to immediate necessities. Last week, a Vietcong suspect was turned over to the chief of the Vietnamese Security Services, who executed him on the spot—a flat violation of the Geneva Convention on the Rules of War. </blockquote><blockquote>The photograph of the execution was on front pages all around the world—leading our best and oldest friends to ask, more in sorrow than in anger, what has happened to America? </blockquote>Somehow, as I have gotten to know and understand General Loan, I can see him being asked the same questions by O'Brien, but when it came to pouring sulfuric acid on a child, I really think General Loan would have told him 'no'.<br />
<br />
But I could not see Kid Rock, Dick Cheney, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo">John Yoo</a> having moral standards high enough to where they could not be "subordinated to immediate necessities." These three, and others like them, view the world and our nation's behavior regarding our wants and needs, as absolute.<br />
<br />
What does this say about some of my fellow countrymen who wield a great deal of power and influence over my fellow citizens? What does this say about those who would denigrate Robert Kennedy for questioning what we are doing, why we are doing it, and the cost of said actions? What type of behavior should we all see as corrupt or depraved, as a degenerate act or practice, regardless of why it is being performed?<br />
<br />
Which side of the coin do we want America to land on, Kid Rock or Robert Kennedy?<br />
<br />
<br />
Next Post: The "Good Guys" Government: Equally important as the military effort in winning the war<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-21094986691182035762011-07-06T13:23:00.003-05:002011-07-08T09:58:35.366-05:00Why the lies, misstatements, half-truths, and downright disgust....As I have said a number of times in my posts regarding Eddie Adams and General Loan, there is a lot I did not know about the Vietnam war. There is a lot I still don't know. <br />
<br />
However, through all of this research, through reading the declassified CIA and military documents, visiting websites and reading comments, looking at the reporting done at the time, reading the speeches written, and studying the journal articles written, a clearer pictures as to why the lies, misstatements, half-truths, and downright disgust, emerges.<br />
<br />
Basically, it boils down to this: There are some people who hold a logical fantasy as the truth regarding war. That is, they believe that victory in a war is achievable if it were not "directed or constrained by political motives or concerns, nor limited by the practical constraints of time or space."<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war">1</a>) </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span> In other words, had the public been kept completely in the dark, had Nixon dropped bombs for one more week, had we pushed through across the border, had we used nukes, had we done and used everything in our power, we would have achieved victory in Vietnam.<br />
<br />
That's a logical fantasy because it ignores all of the realities in play. War takes money and effort. That money and effort comes from somewhere does it not? To allow the military to do whatever it takes to achieve victory assumes, naively, that victory can always be achieved.<br />
<br />
And that assumption ignores the cost. How many more lives are required to be taken to achieve victory? As many as it takes? What weapons should be used? Anything and everything? What will happen if victory is obtained? It doesn't matter, aftermath is not the military's concern, is it not?<br />
<br />
Now that may sound like I am being harsh on the military. I am not. I am simply pointing out a reality, <i>their</i> reality. Their job is to move forward or keep the other guy from moving forward. It is not nation building, or refugees, or bad blood, or destroyed infrastructure, cost in money, dead or wounded troops, or anything else. It is simply to successfully complete their mission.<br />
<br />
And therein lies the problem with Vietnam and any other war that does not involve an invading army. It is not something that can be won. At best, as Walter Cronkite <a href="https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/cronkite_1968.html">said</a> in his newscast that pissed so many off:<br />
<blockquote>To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.</blockquote>To say we could <i><u>not</u></i> have won is incorrect. We could have, and those that served and those who believe in the concept of absolute war, know this as the truth. And, once again, therein lies the problem with the Vietnam war.<br />
<br />
If we could have won, why weren't we allowed to win? Was it because of the press, the hippies, the defeatists, the weak-minded.... No, it wasn't, but yes it was!<br />
<br />
Two academics, Peter Rollins and David Culbert have written an number of journal articles on how the press, especially TV, was responsible for changing the US attitude against the war. Everyone has bias when they write. As much as I try to be objective, it is possible, even without my knowledge (which sounds crazy cause' I'm the guy typing!) that what I write may fail to take in consideration those viewpoints and facts I am adamantly opposed to.<br />
<br />
That being the case, lets look at from where Peter Rollins, a Vietnam vet, is <a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/177/1770232001.pdf">writing</a> from:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqNCTM1DYx76EvCiTZPSCA4MoBI-ojlBHOvwcEy1JRoxVdVZ7E93-xKz3grqKXKQ98Q9SqwTOJRO1P7TYdqJdX5ueGHOb6V_7vxaQ0d27GCg0OlUNjwl7eRamxLIEyiBU8x0OBIJt6FLvg/s1600/Rollins+-+1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqNCTM1DYx76EvCiTZPSCA4MoBI-ojlBHOvwcEy1JRoxVdVZ7E93-xKz3grqKXKQ98Q9SqwTOJRO1P7TYdqJdX5ueGHOb6V_7vxaQ0d27GCg0OlUNjwl7eRamxLIEyiBU8x0OBIJt6FLvg/s320/Rollins+-+1.gif" width="250" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj74NMyw93kaFMCl7jGMaqCgbM8JPDdtbHe_KhkJrWj9fFi376gzDtarzCSUlOIUqJcpdSP_gryu4ccuzVyj4xqY5kf8hexS1Bh4zxApM1A__UCLFNjs5J_S7nXrJP1u_daRVE5k49WBuRt/s1600/Rollins+-+2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj74NMyw93kaFMCl7jGMaqCgbM8JPDdtbHe_KhkJrWj9fFi376gzDtarzCSUlOIUqJcpdSP_gryu4ccuzVyj4xqY5kf8hexS1Bh4zxApM1A__UCLFNjs5J_S7nXrJP1u_daRVE5k49WBuRt/s320/Rollins+-+2.gif" width="250" /></a></div><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcgebsn5LJiWcnVo3xuML7okz-yeiwNPQjoMQuKEvs54hyphenhyphen1DHKw2PqoI3zwXolDNfkLc0d66YkCXa2xHygW6Br3fEKKipPkDbLIysBqKwr7FsTV01DjNjVhJInOva7er9l2emKXKQUa0nF/s1600/Rollins+-+3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcgebsn5LJiWcnVo3xuML7okz-yeiwNPQjoMQuKEvs54hyphenhyphen1DHKw2PqoI3zwXolDNfkLc0d66YkCXa2xHygW6Br3fEKKipPkDbLIysBqKwr7FsTV01DjNjVhJInOva7er9l2emKXKQUa0nF/s320/Rollins+-+3.gif" width="250" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">Oklahoma State University News Service 10/20/80</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
One can reasonably understand what biases Peter Rollin's may have. What he puts is, leaves out, positioning, context, all go into the making of his film. It is a logical fantasy in play here, made that way by a certain reality. He, as well as his brothers in arms, were denied not only overall victory, but were not given the full respect they felt deserved for the same sacrifice and duty other veterans were offered. That's a reality. That's what drives and motivates the need to show not just the truth, but a truth more reflective of a need to overcome these two losses.<br />
<br />
Case in point. Does it really matter if the VC entered into the embassy building itself or blew a hole in the wall and entered into the compound? Does it matter that the pistol that was tossed up to the ambassador "just in time to shoot the VC coming up the stairs" took place in the stairs of the bungalow and not in the embassy? <br />
<br />
In other words, had we been told that the VC entered only into the compound and that the ambassador was able to catch the pistol and shoot the VC in the bungalow, our opinion of what happened during Tet would have been different. Do those facts make their effort more...I don't know, deserving of respect?<br />
<br />
It is true - that had there been no press or cameras - we would have come away with a whole different opinion of Tet, as was pointed out by one of Rollin and Culbert's colleagues regarding their film:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0cFE8KqKjuc26nX80z1C2lDaKK-uC2isWl-5ClKLijzjIJa8QaQPzGbeihf5H_eBbGiCKBXxXarl4-c-TSagOGyJFiImqMxjSVMlRGT-IahWrf_XCBIATkHwn3CMqxwlfUV2VjvDkdSkh/s1600/Rollins+-+4.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0cFE8KqKjuc26nX80z1C2lDaKK-uC2isWl-5ClKLijzjIJa8QaQPzGbeihf5H_eBbGiCKBXxXarl4-c-TSagOGyJFiImqMxjSVMlRGT-IahWrf_XCBIATkHwn3CMqxwlfUV2VjvDkdSkh/s320/Rollins+-+4.gif" width="281" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">Oklahoma State University News Service 10/20/80</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>And what would have our opinion have been? Would it have been one that ignored the realities we could see? Would it have been one that resulted because we were kept in the dark? Should our opinion have been left solely to what our government and the military wanted it to be?<br />
<br />
The reason we have lies, misstatements, half-truths, and downright disgust.... is simply because the those who think in absolutes cannot except a reality that does not work in absolutes. So thy build and perpetuate myths as to why it did not work out their way.<br />
<br />
Look at what Rollins is quoted as saying:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg17sVbbkFmoLFRdeHjWiGe3hOaZP5QiWdSY5UTFn8Un2QkkeZqAQOV169H850Egm3Bn_Eia8lHsB3AoUmiYfXkjzyariswmsOwcd4tIWUCoavwiVBytRSRK0TG2FdAS-kmASYHtPlfTmk1/s1600/Rollins+-+5.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg17sVbbkFmoLFRdeHjWiGe3hOaZP5QiWdSY5UTFn8Un2QkkeZqAQOV169H850Egm3Bn_Eia8lHsB3AoUmiYfXkjzyariswmsOwcd4tIWUCoavwiVBytRSRK0TG2FdAS-kmASYHtPlfTmk1/s400/Rollins+-+5.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">Oklahoma State University News Service 10/20/80</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>This assumes that we would be easily swayed by the "eye-for-an-eye" defense for the actions performed by General Loan. That one must "fight fire with fire" so it's all okay. Had we been told what General Loan said to the reporters (see <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-did-general-nguyen-ngoc-loan.html">post</a>) during the broadcast, it would have made it "more complex" and less about "the drama implicit in the images - never mind the fact that the day before in all the newspapers Loan's "they killed many of my men" statement <i>was</i> reported.<br />
<br />
Somehow had we been told and shown something different, the results would be different. But this also brings forth the premise that had we <u><i><b>not</b></i></u> been told or shown, the results would have been different as well. The<i> inability</i> to control the message is what these absolutists are reticent about. But up until Tet, the absolutists did control the message, even Rollins understands that:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGqkOmENWAFN5lvvIBGWreaB95pvFsj_A2VWewt5syIeTxRn_mbDy-jWdKv8NpPw9fEnETZTvICo9UxwsUN378mTpGDpzpqxlWzHpIj0cyHaq3L2Ez_ebF6Cg7w9F43iAo0YVmqgktSMbG/s1600/Rollins+-+6.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="96" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGqkOmENWAFN5lvvIBGWreaB95pvFsj_A2VWewt5syIeTxRn_mbDy-jWdKv8NpPw9fEnETZTvICo9UxwsUN378mTpGDpzpqxlWzHpIj0cyHaq3L2Ez_ebF6Cg7w9F43iAo0YVmqgktSMbG/s400/Rollins+-+6.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">Oklahoma State University News Service 10/20/80</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>So why the need for lies, misstatements, half-truths, and downright disgust.... if what we had been told up to that point was "pure propaganda?" Shouldn't what we saw, heard and read, about Tet lead us to a more reasoned understanding about our involvement there? It should, for how could it not. The only problem is where it led us was away from where the absolutists wanted us to go. This is what Robert Kennedy meant when he <a href="http://teach.yauger.net/us/vietnam/rfkvietnam.pdf">said</a>:<br />
<blockquote>The third illusion is that the unswerving pursuit of military victory, whatever its cost, is in the interest of either ourselves or the people of Vietnam. </blockquote>For the absolutists winning the war, whatever its cost, is a given, an <i><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absolute">absolute</a></i>. For the soldier, to have their effort used for anything other than pursuit of a victory, is unconscionable. When Rollins says about Tet that "we won the battle, but lost the war" he is looking at it from both an absolutists and a soldier. And here is the reality that some, like Robert Kennedy, understood after Tet. There was not war <u><i>to</i></u> win:<br />
<blockquote>This has not happened because our men are not brave or effective, because they are. It is because we have misconceived the nature of the war: It is because we have sought to resolve by military might a conflict whose issue depends upon the will and conviction of the South Vietnamese people. It is like sending a lion to halt an epidemic of jungle rot. </blockquote>The reasons, therefore, for these lies, misstatements, half-truths, and downright disgust.... are understandable. The reality, as Robert Kennedy was pointing out, does not sit well for those who think in absolutes and those who gave their effort, blood, limbs, minds, and lives fighting in a war that was misconceived.<br />
<br />
I understand it. That doesn't mean I condone it. The truth may hurt, but it is still the truth. But there is another ugly truth out there, and that is even with this understanding, there are still absolutist out there who believe we should do whatever it costs to win.<br />
<br />
Next post: Kid Rock, Carl von Clausewitz, O'Brien, and General Loan<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A: http://www.virtual.vietnam.ttu.edu/cgi-bin/starfetch.exe?qO5rMU.DiqvlrSWsuB1Mf8EKAM7DS@kPMRUtVAr.IGHX41PNYoZ6yvkegnGQxp@NLQBhL1W6QfH7WggCxsAZkLtdM.ZE9SUbfXESsRsY4HZQeXwrcEYJWA/1770232001.pdf<br />
<br />
B: http://www.virtual.vietnam.ttu.edu/cgi-bin/starfetch.exe?1A.hvdzxuUydy.v30umxLPKIj@At5tt7P7RX3bWEdjQjOPSNpY8vODjYuH3WbhErDaF8n1avbxUmMbCXw1NRyL@gD6BbEFvSyxIRLQKG@6z9gB1iEh8hJQ/1770205053.pdf<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-17872627359793233792011-07-05T09:07:00.008-05:002011-07-08T08:44:54.825-05:00Carl von Clausewitz, the CIA, and General LoanLike I said in the beginning of this series of posts; there is a lot I don't know about the Vietnam war, a lot I should have known at the time, a lot the public should have known, and especially my parents who, for them, I would have done my duty as asked of me by my country, should have known as a means of helping me decide what I might have gotten myself into. I turned 18 in 1975, so I missed all the fun by just a couple years.<br />
<br />
Carl von Clausewitz, the guy who wrote the book "On War," talks about the concept of "Absolute War" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war">explained</a> as follows:<br />
<blockquote>"[A]bsolute war is a philosophical abstraction--a "logical fantasy"--that is impossible in practice because it is not directed or constrained by political motives or concerns, nor limited by the practical constraints of time or space. He called warfare constrained by these moderating real-world influences <i>real war</i>."</blockquote>When you read all the comments regarding the Eddie Adams photo (<a href="http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/02/the.html">example</a>), you start to understand that most people see a situation in the most abstract, and fail to connect all the different parts in play. What they cannot grasp is how things that run the gambit from ego, to pride, to faith, to superstition, to history, to culture, to logistics - all the way down the basic laws of physics - mold, shape, and confine a war. All of these things, plus more, interconnect and places constraints on our ability to perform, as it did with Vietnam.<br />
<br />
Such is the truth about what took place during the Vietnam war as well as what General Loan did that day on February 1st, 1968. The outcome - the reality - was the result of all sorts of things in play before and during. Anything else brought into the conversation about the <i>how and why</i> that is not factual or interconnected is a <i>logical fantasy</i> perpetuated by those that cannot accept the truth as it really is.<br />
<br />
"He was one of us," Eddie Adams said. We were there for for him and he for us. Simple! And that's why it's a logical fantasy to think of it in such an absolute way. We must have been there for a reason, if General Loan was one of us. That assumes that there must have been a "them" in order for there to be an "us." The "them" was the communist north. If you can remember the time before the Berlin wall fell, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and China became capitalists, communism was a big scary boogieman for the US. You cannot look at it with 21st century eyes, you need to see it with eyes that viewed the world in the 50's and 60's.<br />
<br />
Fighting communism was the main political motive that directed our involvement over there. That's what gave us an enemy...a "them." Now let's look at that enemy from a grounding in truth (assuming that declassified CIA documents are truthful). What did we know about our enemy eight months before Tet? <br />
<br />
From: The Vietnam Situation: <a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/041/04114191009a.pdf">The Vietnam Situation: An Analysis and Estimate</a> - May 23, 1967, Central Intelligence Agency Collection.<br />
<blockquote>"The situation thereafter will largely depend, as it has in the past, on the question of the will to persist of either side rather than on the attainment of an overwhelming military victory."</blockquote><div>That was the conclusion, derived from this:</div><div><blockquote>"Although the enemy hopes to overrun a number of allied field positions, his principal aim is to inflict maximum attrition on our forces at whatever cost to his own, and to check the momentum of the pacification effort."</blockquote>Here is what Walter Cronkite would <a href="https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/cronkite_1968.html">say</a> on February 27, 1968, for which he took a lot of flak and was accused of losing the war for us by turning public opinion away from one of support.<br />
<blockquote>"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion."</blockquote></div>What does Carl von Clausewitz had to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war">say</a> about war:<br />
<blockquote>"Therefore, war in its most natural manner would involve each state continually reciprocating each other's use of force (plus some) to maintain a superiority, until both were using violence to its utmost extent." [first reciprocal action]</blockquote>And in 1967, what did the US understand the situation in Vietnam to be?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpICrqVafs7W5ga0UmScf2YVZ07gXy3zoVwEWE2iz06kDFqWP5c3Xpk0nly3iKSXNzTDj5PaKfrmD_iwRqtVRMbmao4Z87zty4JmL1YHjZ05ZdbNKn8DyYa2KGzXNlR00QYjl64-JP7TB6/s1600/123-b.GIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpICrqVafs7W5ga0UmScf2YVZ07gXy3zoVwEWE2iz06kDFqWP5c3Xpk0nly3iKSXNzTDj5PaKfrmD_iwRqtVRMbmao4Z87zty4JmL1YHjZ05ZdbNKn8DyYa2KGzXNlR00QYjl64-JP7TB6/s400/123-b.GIF" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/041/04114191009a.pdf">The Vietnam Situation: An Analysis and Estimate</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>And what does Carl von Clausewitz have to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war">say</a> about this type of knowledge that was known to the CIA?:<br />
<blockquote>[T]he use of power involves two factors. The first is the strength of available means, which may be measured somewhat by numbers (although not entirely). The second factor is the strength of the will which can not be specifically measured (only estimated) as it is intangible. Once a state has gained an approximation of the enemy's strength of resistance it can review its own means and adjust them upwards accordingly in an effort to gain the advantage. As the enemy will also be doing this, it too becomes reciprocal. [third reciprocal action]</blockquote>Why all this lecture on the theory of war? How does this relate to General Loan? Lets look at this particular sentence from the Wikipedia page on "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_war">Absolute War</a>."<br />
<blockquote>Absolute war can be seen to be an act of violence without compromise, in which states fight to war's natural extremes; it is a war without the 'grafted' political and moral moderations.</blockquote>What does <i>an act of violence without compromise</i> entail? Is it collateral damage? Is it torture? Is it killing woman and children in My Lai? Raping women in Nanking? Or was it executing a bound man who was part of an invasion force into your city? In other words, what does <i>an act of violence without compromise </i>allow? Surely it cannot allow for <i>everything</i>, or do we allow it to because it is war?<br />
<br />
War brings forward certain truths, like it or not. War <u><b>will always</b></u> move towards more and more extreme actions. War <b><u>will always</u></b> require two factors; strength of available means and the strength of the will behind the effort. If we can assume this premise to be true, what General Loan did that day on February 1st 1968 was simply an absolute. Without any other considerations taken into account, what he did was no more or less extreme than any other act committed that day, if the premise is true that war is <i>an act of violence without compromise. </i><br />
<br />
Then why is he singled out? Quite simply, it is because we cannot accept the Carl von Clausewitz premise and call ourselves human, compassionate, or Christian. What we saw in the photo and the film was the reality in play when one group wants to make another group comply with its will. That's what war is all about. What the US, General Loan, and Nguyen Van Lem were doing that day was fulfilling war's ultimate purpose: trying to force the other into a position from which it cannot resist the other's will.<br />
<br />
This does not justify - nor condemn - General Loan's actions that day. It only helps explain it. And for those who believe that the photo and Walter Cronkite lost the war because it changed public opinion, that places blame for our lack of a "victory" on those who did not accept the cost in blood and treasure for the purpose of forcing the opposing group to accept <i>our</i> will. <br />
<br />
And if Carl von Clausewitz and the CIA in May of 1967 were correct, the <i>extreme</i> that this conflict was going to let lose was going to be bloody, long, and severe, a point Walter Cronkite made succinctly in 1968 after Tet:<br />
<blockquote>For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.</blockquote>It would take five more years and 58.209 US deaths for our strength of will to stop reciprocating and put an end to the war's natural extremes. Had we continued, had we deemed this effort to continue whatever the costs, what might those extremes be? Anything and everything, including nuclear weapons and countless more deaths, hence Cronkite's logical conclusion - which is sound based on Carl von Clausewitz's first reciprocal action: "...each state continually reciprocating each other's use of force (plus some) to maintain a superiority, until both were using violence to its utmost extent."<br />
<br />
What General Loan showed us February 1st, 1968 was the ugly face of what war is really all about.<br />
<br />
Next post: Why the lies, misstatements, half-truths, and downright disgust....<br />
<br />
<br />
.<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-56190325739014349162011-07-03T15:23:00.008-05:002011-07-04T06:32:52.021-05:00General Loan: "Probably the most feared man in the country"And what about General Loan in all of this? Can he <i>really</i> be characterized as a "good guy?"<br />
<br />
It is 1966, and General Loan is responsible for creating a whole mess of turmoil for the Vietnamese government that was in power at the time, before Thieu and Ky would be "elected" in October of 1967. (<a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/041/0410690009.pdf">1</a>)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIdO7PDhtQrpj1bO4Vw3xiMrdEeDc5NIXOo5ufumeV7Agtizd0plaEvKrQBUqVl_MsD-uN2HZTq-YRBlhFeKn2NVswoPPsTubQwyHzCA0moLhoEKj0Y8GDTiMHr7vFz8rsmXOof3cW7PpH/s1600/1-+0410690009.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIdO7PDhtQrpj1bO4Vw3xiMrdEeDc5NIXOo5ufumeV7Agtizd0plaEvKrQBUqVl_MsD-uN2HZTq-YRBlhFeKn2NVswoPPsTubQwyHzCA0moLhoEKj0Y8GDTiMHr7vFz8rsmXOof3cW7PpH/s400/1-+0410690009.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Political Activities of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (LBJ Library)</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Seems the good General not only dislikes communists but he is not to keen on the "southerners" who were on his side.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVLrsU1DwCVJSEOJRJBeWuH_lL315vQVXa-MJLtl_v7FLzIqjYpXteNW9pMN216Co1_LYFd8rk8V_odDoOuQyEORLJyppbrlCfW4ZPZGdzCKxnozeK5b1eQPGJKbzj3Lefc2lw2JQANmU0/s1600/2-+0410690009.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="97" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVLrsU1DwCVJSEOJRJBeWuH_lL315vQVXa-MJLtl_v7FLzIqjYpXteNW9pMN216Co1_LYFd8rk8V_odDoOuQyEORLJyppbrlCfW4ZPZGdzCKxnozeK5b1eQPGJKbzj3Lefc2lw2JQANmU0/s400/2-+0410690009.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Political Activities of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (LBJ Library)</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
So how does the General spend his time....<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwtY9hvscjJ9eEt7VItNBGy5QSu0Zx9bZzScSX3z2LdL9OLZTpEMpwf2OueoW-ae7rVYj51xekqese93EVKhCI26dpvD5kx0oD70DI1_0H3db3Kh_LdRQE1E9e06F0qp1WRfg0ugww5M7-/s1600/3-+0410690009.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="375" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwtY9hvscjJ9eEt7VItNBGy5QSu0Zx9bZzScSX3z2LdL9OLZTpEMpwf2OueoW-ae7rVYj51xekqese93EVKhCI26dpvD5kx0oD70DI1_0H3db3Kh_LdRQE1E9e06F0qp1WRfg0ugww5M7-/s400/3-+0410690009.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Political Activities of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (LBJ Library)</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
A regular J. Edgar Hoover...or Richard Nixon!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT4_xB59n-HsRVxvabpY5qya7erQTFgWDJ96IDcUFOfKR3fBtjkMODn49hbiuPh5CV020TujdCXYticpJSRwtWRov2HsKT2FrI77OIsn7xMC15SMIOk-rmkWNWHI9X7WAbNDLRUmHAxE-b/s1600/4-+0410690009.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="122" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT4_xB59n-HsRVxvabpY5qya7erQTFgWDJ96IDcUFOfKR3fBtjkMODn49hbiuPh5CV020TujdCXYticpJSRwtWRov2HsKT2FrI77OIsn7xMC15SMIOk-rmkWNWHI9X7WAbNDLRUmHAxE-b/s400/4-+0410690009.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Political Activities of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (LBJ Library)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Remember my last post when I asked WHO are we fighting for?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3RoUUnGWBPhw9QcClrIyyVzvw5iCU9I6nWAyK6L6rcpcwYhQkO1KMdvohjMo9LVeF23nJSji62w1wjYxfqv1Jfp5ZT9BEa9PbB_-C0EdZJamxUj0x1ZFBGPgM3TC9lNDeOlY5H3xs4W7u/s1600/5-+0410690009.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="82" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3RoUUnGWBPhw9QcClrIyyVzvw5iCU9I6nWAyK6L6rcpcwYhQkO1KMdvohjMo9LVeF23nJSji62w1wjYxfqv1Jfp5ZT9BEa9PbB_-C0EdZJamxUj0x1ZFBGPgM3TC9lNDeOlY5H3xs4W7u/s400/5-+0410690009.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Political Activities of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (LBJ Library)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Still a free-press mind you, just nothing to print it on.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGzJ_bxLvxhTBVzMTF1ale-UhpWZZovn2q6Vkf6eVAjmAz1zDjNw0myfnnAKbBQNJqfTlf67oUSsY-B9JnhWWIl33gVuwnxbhmLPxnifiafhjpUCYN_nQIMt6l81gDvE9OO0ZIBkY55yjV/s1600/6-+0410690009.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="175" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGzJ_bxLvxhTBVzMTF1ale-UhpWZZovn2q6Vkf6eVAjmAz1zDjNw0myfnnAKbBQNJqfTlf67oUSsY-B9JnhWWIl33gVuwnxbhmLPxnifiafhjpUCYN_nQIMt6l81gDvE9OO0ZIBkY55yjV/s400/6-+0410690009.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Political Activities of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (LBJ Library)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>C'mon....if that's not Hoover and Nixon-like nothing is. Makes Carl Rove look minor league!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPtRfk6o7B5rkN9dYVAwPtMO-0JQdMBI5ZIhXYZeaVxWFmsWB6l0Y-f6-rCSCUBShVOUbXwB4ODxu8YtgEfkpwwbjr7Qs7pxiUK6E64UrqMoPuxBIR3JzLwQw3QF_EceTyEW0DaMVyuVcn/s1600/7-+0410690009.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="131" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPtRfk6o7B5rkN9dYVAwPtMO-0JQdMBI5ZIhXYZeaVxWFmsWB6l0Y-f6-rCSCUBShVOUbXwB4ODxu8YtgEfkpwwbjr7Qs7pxiUK6E64UrqMoPuxBIR3JzLwQw3QF_EceTyEW0DaMVyuVcn/s400/7-+0410690009.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Political Activities of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan (LBJ Library)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>And if they said "No?"<br />
<br />
Another good read is another secret <a href="http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/041/0410690008.pdf">documen</a>t on the same matter, with this little gem:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7coLyPXpX6-cUUbeYpoESakD1sVZ7xwCv43QSikmaOYjm7WeTGj8PyG3TP4-Zfnchtp2kw-3QFrj17F8a7ySwuOYvfW3BzeHTkDpTJpKqoiNFoK1zXvU6_NuNi0puZBZ0UOowcVs_MZ5b/s1600/9-+0410690009.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="62" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7coLyPXpX6-cUUbeYpoESakD1sVZ7xwCv43QSikmaOYjm7WeTGj8PyG3TP4-Zfnchtp2kw-3QFrj17F8a7ySwuOYvfW3BzeHTkDpTJpKqoiNFoK1zXvU6_NuNi0puZBZ0UOowcVs_MZ5b/s400/9-+0410690009.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">CIA summary on the activities of Brigadier General Loan, Jan 26, 1967</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Which, if you look at it objectively, tells you the bind the US was in (see last <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/07/and-its-one-two-three-who-are-we.html">post</a>). This <b><i><u>is</u></i></b> the reality we faced. It was not going to be a fair election, the Vietnamese military <i><u><b>had</b></u></i> to win or they would have just taken over anyway. The other reality here, is that because of this, Robert Kennedy's <a href="http://teach.yauger.net/us/vietnam/rfkvietnam.pdf">remarks</a> on Feb 8, 1968 were also spot on:<br />
<blockquote>You cannot expect [the South Vietnamese] people to risk their lives and endure hardship unless they have a stake in their own society. They must have a clear sense of identification with their own government, a belief they are participating in a cause worth fighting for. </blockquote>So when the New York Times writes:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXSiVETXwqPM_A9nG7Sn340H5bL6kkbtNL5TFjTr8X4snLlOAvLVgxq2M1YYc-3S0F_ZQn7HjNbIYgCpU86eU1zB6EAOFfjPHXYTiwSkA8_ziPz5x2agJ7xFATwTThLDtMxWhgAF-FKypY/s1600/Loan+Oct+30+1967+NYT.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXSiVETXwqPM_A9nG7Sn340H5bL6kkbtNL5TFjTr8X4snLlOAvLVgxq2M1YYc-3S0F_ZQn7HjNbIYgCpU86eU1zB6EAOFfjPHXYTiwSkA8_ziPz5x2agJ7xFATwTThLDtMxWhgAF-FKypY/s320/Loan+Oct+30+1967+NYT.gif" width="257" /></a></div><br />
It kind of sounds like they are accurately describing General Loan, I mean, unless you want to discount all of the secret documents reference above and in my previous posts.<br />
<br />
And if the NYT's description of General Loan is true, when the ABC cameraman, who is Vietnamese, said he was "afraid of General Loan" that sounds like a pretty accurate feeling, all things considered.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggKaWPdGUsc2u4s4UthIOoP_wep2s_X-ikzb9OMBZbbacSaOqr2xeCY1Mpfsg7T5QvdZsFz0FwdvXc1J7Vbxwti5mJbMi3BMfF37Ow-nOyxj8vvodInNWbbNIXo56LR1PF_O_fe4QCKKv8/s1600/8-+0410690009.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggKaWPdGUsc2u4s4UthIOoP_wep2s_X-ikzb9OMBZbbacSaOqr2xeCY1Mpfsg7T5QvdZsFz0FwdvXc1J7Vbxwti5mJbMi3BMfF37Ow-nOyxj8vvodInNWbbNIXo56LR1PF_O_fe4QCKKv8/s400/8-+0410690009.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Once again I ask you; is General Loan a "good guy" because he was one of us or because Eddie Adam's said he was? Or, is it more likely that he fell somewhere between "good guy" and "most feared man in the country?" <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, it would appear that the category one would place General Loan in, "good" or "feared" seems to be wholly dependent on what side of the fence <u><i>he</i></u> saw you on.<br />
<br />
Next Post: Carl von Clausewitz, the CIA, and General Loan<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-1797678356329872552011-07-01T22:22:00.002-05:002011-07-03T15:20:47.380-05:00And it's one, two, three WHO are we fighting for?Before I can continue on with why I feel General Loan should not be viewed as a "good guy," I need to delve into a bit of background on the Vietnam situation in 1967. All of this is, in my opinion, necessary to understand General Loan the man.<br />
<br />
I am going to start this post off with a <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/45754314/Vietnam-War-Part-2">picture</a>:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPyDD1Rs4tnloO52AZERBP-y9yAt_3SVrSG_gdUXyDN8cTxsrBn0FOqvuNRfw5fK-mB23Pseufh4Ocix_nK3B3kF4FDCqxWPGikRyBysUzLB6QK9exQDOY3JdDcO7qkVTBhkgK2QhW4STt/s1600/Ky+and+wife+walking+hand+in+hand+matching+jump+suits.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPyDD1Rs4tnloO52AZERBP-y9yAt_3SVrSG_gdUXyDN8cTxsrBn0FOqvuNRfw5fK-mB23Pseufh4Ocix_nK3B3kF4FDCqxWPGikRyBysUzLB6QK9exQDOY3JdDcO7qkVTBhkgK2QhW4STt/s400/Ky+and+wife+walking+hand+in+hand+matching+jump+suits.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">Wearing matching flight suits and scarves, South Vietnam’s Premier Nguyen Cao Ky strolls hand-in-hand with his wife as they make aninspection tour of the battlefield near Bong Son, South Vietnam on February 4, 1966. Ky visited the area where American and SouthVietnamese troops killed a reported 700 Communist guerillas in recent battles. (Photo: © Bettmann/CORBIS</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>The question I want to pose is this: can one looking at the picture tell the difference between drama and information? Can one read meaning into what is shown? Is this photo a half-truth?<br />
<br />
There is a reason for showing that particular photo. In my opinion it supports what was known to the US and to the Vietnam people about the men who were leading them. This should become evident as you read on.<br />
<br />
Historian David Culbert <a href="http://elenarazlogova.org/hist615/pdfs/culbert.pdf">writes</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Robert Kennedy, who entered the presidential race on 10 March 1968, made his first major speech following Tet on 8 February, at the Chicago Book and Author luncheon. He insisted that Tet was a military disaster for the Americans, and that the South Vietnamese government was "a government without supporters."</blockquote>I'll let you read the full <a href="http://teach.yauger.net/us/vietnam/rfkvietnam.pdf">speech</a> by Robert Kennedy to see if you come to the same conclusion. Anyway, more to my point in trying to support why General Loan is not a "good guy," lets look at what Robert Kennedy said in this speech and how his comments on February 8th 1968 compares to what the CIA knew at the time. All of that, and the above photo too.<br />
<br />
Here is what Robert Kennedy said in his speech:<br />
<blockquote>You cannot expect [the South Vietnamese] people to risk their lives and endure hardship unless they have a stake in their own society. They must have a clear sense of identification with their own government, a belief they are participating in a cause worth fighting for. </blockquote><blockquote>People will not fight to line the pockets of generals or swell the bank accounts of the wealthy. They are far more likely to close their eyes and shut their doors in the face of their government—even as they did last week [Tet offensive]. </blockquote><blockquote>More than any election, more than any proud boast, that single fact reveals the truth. We have an ally in name only. <b>We support a government without supporters. </b>Without the efforts of American arms that government would not last a day.</blockquote>General Loan was one of those Generals. He was not flashy like his best friend Ky, but he was just as powerful. In addition to Adams calling Loan a "good guy" he also called him a "goddamn hero." I have my doubts about that.<br />
<br />
So what do we know about Loan and these Generals Robert Kennedy speaks about. Was it really a government without supporters? Without the efforts of American arms would that government have lasted?<br />
<br />
Here is what the CIA states in their declassified <a href="http://www.foia.cia.gov/vietnam/1_CIA_AND_THE_GENERALS.pdf">document</a>. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZmymJRx_o25_I0fsSiUo6ifVrsGPiweXzrCfj0xTVROY4wO-skXyOJaznwkRO5V2vJi_XOflOdCpGenLnL_N-VETV2d_wLb8GW3cRt-0Jo3H7o81VQZM1WBYP8k0AbQQhAwOnTJkeVJJv/s1600/the+generals+cover.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZmymJRx_o25_I0fsSiUo6ifVrsGPiweXzrCfj0xTVROY4wO-skXyOJaznwkRO5V2vJi_XOflOdCpGenLnL_N-VETV2d_wLb8GW3cRt-0Jo3H7o81VQZM1WBYP8k0AbQQhAwOnTJkeVJJv/s200/the+generals+cover.gif" width="139" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">October 1998</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Only relevant sections referencing General Loan are included. Interesting tidbits of information and enlightenment are in <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">blue</span>.<br />
<blockquote>In mid--1966, with US combat forces carrying the burden of offensive operations against the Communists, government, stability was still the dominant political issue. Station disengagement from Palace liaison had now endured a full year, while CIA expanded its programs in the countryside. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Ky was planning elections to a' constitutional constituent assembly that summer, and the problem of campaign financing drew the Agency back into involvement with the military leadership.</span>"</blockquote><blockquote>One of Prime Minister Ky's closest confidants was Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, who as chief of both the National Police and the Military Security Service also conducted liaison with the Station on intelligence and security matters, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">He importuned the Station for money to replenish police funds he had used to subsidize the campaigns of Ky allies, </span>Ambassador Lodge asked the Station to oblige him, and Headquarters approved a subsidy of 10 million piasters (about $85,000) which the Station passed to Loan on 25 August.</blockquote><blockquote>This return to active involvement with the leadership coincided with the departure of Gordon Jorgensen. His replacement, John Hart, had run other large Stations [redact] He seems not to have shared Jorgensen's reservations about direct dealings at the top, and in midOctober asked Headquarters<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"> to consider giving Loan another 14 million piasters to replace police and MSS funds diverted to the election campaign.</span> According to Loan, Ky needed this support to avoid having to declare to his peers in the Military Directorate that he had used money from the Prime Minister's secret fund for political purposes. Hart noted that Ky was trying at the moment to resolve another cabinet crisis, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">and thought Lodge would approve CIA support designed to strengthen Ky's position</span></blockquote><blockquote>No reply has been found, and the proposal may have been overtaken<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"> by the controversy over Loan himself that came to a head when Headquarters suggested his removal</span>. As for the original 10-million-piaster subsidy, while it may have spared Ky some embarrassment, its influence on the electoral outcome was apparently slight, as the only available reference to its use concerns support to two unsuccessful candidates in Da Nang,</blockquote><blockquote>The discussion over Loan's future - it did not address the means by which he might be unseated - brought into focus once more the perennial problem facing the Agency and the rest of the US Mission as they looked for Vietnamese officials meriting US support. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Loan was energetic and highly intelligent, manipulative, and entirely loyal to Ky. But he did not look to the US for guidance, and in personal style sometimes appeared to be playing the clown.</span> COS Hart later recalled having liked him; even if Loan "never agreed with anything I ever said," <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">he was "absolutely honest," and perhaps the only Vietnamese official of Hart's acquaintance who would openly disagree with an American</span></blockquote><blockquote>To Russ Miller, who saw them together after he returned to Saigon in early 1967, the fastidious Hart looked repelled by Loan's "scruffy fatigues and open-toed sandals," and put off as well by Loan's chronic unavailability for an appointment. But there were more substantial reasons for reservations about Loan. Among them were <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">his contempt for individual legal rights and for programs aimed at ingratiating the government with the peasantry,</span> an attitude that put him at odds with American convictions on these issues.</blockquote><blockquote>Whatever his retrospective opinion of Loan, Hart described himself as "not an admirer" when the Ambassador pressed him, in October 1966, to object to the Headquarters call for Loan's removal. Swallowing his reservations.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"> Hart agreed that the police chief was indispensable to Ky at a moment when the US was counting on Ky to produce a constitution and a stable civilian government. </span>Loan soon became important to CIA as well, as events unfolded that led to the Station's two most important political initiatives of 1967.</blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">We seem to be mightily involved with forming the government that is to be out ally.</div><blockquote>In the first of these initiatives, the Station tried to establish clandestine contact with the National Liberation Front for South Vietnam (NLFSVN. usually abbreviated NLF), which although directed from Hanoi was composed mainly of southern Vietnamese. The Station proposed to identify presumed moderate elements in the NLF and to set up a commununications channel to any of these who might be interested in a dialog that excluded Hanoi. The second initiative involved a renewed effort tn deal with perpetually unstable government in Saigon. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Here, the May 1967 arrival of Ellsworth Bunker as US Ambassador and the approach of presidential elections in South Vietnam ushered in a new <u><i><b>CIA effort to influence Vietnamese politics</b></i></u>,</span></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Say what? Yeah, that needed to be underlined, italicized, and made bold! A few paragraphs later....</div><blockquote>Ky's man, General Loan, visited Washington in May [1967] and <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">made it plain that he saw no reason not to exploit the government apparatus to get Ky elected to the presidency.</span> CIA Headquarters seemingly paid little attention to this, perhaps because DDP Richard Helms and FE Division Chief Colby were more interested in the approach to the NLF. Helms forcefully urged more initiatives like the one to Tan Buu Kiem of the NLF Foreign Affairs Committee, and Loan tepidly agreed that the Central Intelligence Organization might be the best instrument for this. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Meanwhile, in Saigon, the rumor mill impeded American efforts to be perceived as having no preference between Thieu and Ky. </span>The chief of the police Special Branch told a Station agent that the rumored imminent removal of John Hart and Ed Lansdale would serve local politicians as proof of US bias against Ky, if it took place, and of favoritism toward him if it didn't.</blockquote><blockquote>Ellsworth Bunker had been in Saigon less than two weeks when on 12 May [1968] Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky announced his presidential candidacy. Unlike Lodge, Bunker had no reservations about using CIA's political contacts in Saigon. He promptly enlisted the Station to help fulfill a Washington mandate to ensure fair elections, and to prevent a split in the Vietnamese military while the US preserved its neutrality between Thieu and Ky. As it turned out, Bunker needed all the help he could get, as this objective was threatened from the outset by General <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Loan, who upon his return from Washington had put into conspicuous action his belief in using government resources to promote Ky's bid. </span>Washington and the US Mission now switched their earlier positions on Loan, as State rejected Bunker's 19 June proposal to force Loan's removal, and suggested using Miller to approach .Ky directly to curb campaign excesses. George Carver, the DCT's Special Assistant for Vietnam Affairs (SAVA), <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">thought Loan's activities a symptom of Saigon's political malaise</span>, not a cause, and suspected that Bunker's proposal reflected little more than the influence of John Hart's <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">"personal distaste for and dislike of Loan</span>."</blockquote><blockquote>Miller saw Ky on 21 June, probably before the Station learned of Washington's response to the Bunker recommendation. Ky acknowledged the possibly damaging effects of Loan's activism, and said he intended to remove Loan from command of the Military Security Service, and reduce his engagement in the electoral campaign. Ky also proposed to convene all province and district chiefs to enjoin them against any campaign excesses on his behalf. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Ky did not know, presumably, that the two aides who had spent five hours with him that day, advocating precisely these measures, were [redacted] Station guidance.</span> Ky said nothing of this 'session to Miller, who had the satisfaction of hearing his message presented as if it were Ky's own idea. The Station reported that the Ambassador was delighted, and that he proposed to use the Station's "advisory services" as a regular supplement to the direct consultation with Ky being urged on him by State.</blockquote><blockquote>Bunker and the Station thought they would enjoy more leverage<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"> if the Station funded a front organization of religious sects and political groups favoring Thieu and Ky</span> and supported those of its contacts running for the National Assembly. But Washington was smarting under the exposure of CIA funding to the US National Student Association and other domestic organizations and refused even to consider it. Secretary of State Rusk cabled Bunker in Agency channels, urging him to establish a closer relationship with Thieu even while pursuing the CIA advisory effort with Ky, and <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">to ensure that Thieu and Ky arrived at a clear mutual understanding of their respective roles during and after the election.</span></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Who's yer daddy!</div><blockquote>Miller succeeded in getting Phong to press the funding question with Ky, who released 5,000,000 piasters in mid-July to support the religious political front. Ky had instructed Phong both to keep Miller fully informed or campaign planning and to give full consideration to American suggestions. Phong began to do both, and his 20 July account of Thieu's having "swallowed a bitter pill" in accepting a circumscribed presidential role lent credibility to the claim of Ky's ascendancy. Miller noted that Phong seemed to think he could run a subtle campaign, keeping government employees from any egregious abuses while encouraging them to advertise Saigon's accomplishments. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">But the Station apparently feared <b style="font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;">that an election completely honest could be an election lost</b>: it accepted without comment Phong's stated intention to exploit General Loan's police apparatus "in critical areas which require more effort to swing the vote to Thieu and Ky."</span></blockquote>....and I'm proud to be an American.....<br />
<blockquote>On 26 July, Miller gave Phong a list of platform suggestions approved by Bunker, and the next day Ky said they agreed with his own thinking, especially those dealing with civil service pay, corruption, and increased emphasis on the rural population. Ky did not, apparently, vet the ideas with Thieu, whose participation in the campaign he at one point derided as "completely silly." Meanwhile, the campaign was faltering, at least partly for lack of money, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">and Ky threatened that, lacking US funding support, he would be forced to rely on General Loan to extract "loan-type levies on various citizens with resultant, unfavorable repercussions."</span> Phong wanted to avoid this kind of coercive fundraising, and the need to make deals with unsavory people, but Miller stood on his instructions. The Station rationalized that an impecunious Thieu-Ky campaign might look more like an honest campaign, but also anticipated the same effects from an unresolved money crunch that Phong did. A few days later, Phong mentioned the distribution of 8,000,000 piasters in the Mekong Delta. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Ky had not revealed the source of the money, and Phong could only surmise that it came from General Loan.</span></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">What did Robert Kennedy say..."We support a government without supporters." That 8 million had to come from supporters. Isn't that what" <i>loan-type levies" </i>refers to?</div><blockquote>In the week before the validation vote on 2 October, the Station mobilized its political contacts, making fifty separate approaches aimed at preventing an embarrassing repudiation of the election results. One opponent of Thien and Ky, in an access of "naivete or crudeness," acknowledged that he and his allies were concerned less with rectifying electoral fraud than with "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">the possibility of extracting a certain profit through political blackmai1.</span>" Whatever the effect of the Station's pressure tactics, the members of the Provisional Legislative Assembly were left in no doubt about the US preference for a validated result. The Constituent Assembly approved the result, 58 to 43, and <b><u>Thieu and Ky were sworn into office on 31 October 1967.</u></b></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">What did Robert Kennedy say..."People will not fight to line the pockets of generals or swell the bank accounts of the wealthy."</div><blockquote>In the last week of November, with the authenticity of the Dang channel still at issue, General Loan provoked a crisis that threatened to end the affair amid mutual embarrassment and recrimination. Miller confronted him with evidence of Saigon leaks about the operation, and at the same time expressed US concern about rumors that Loan was resigning as national police chief. Loan confirmed having submitted his resignalion, adding that Ky had rejected it. But Loan anticipated trouble with Thien's new civilian government, saying that <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">its apparent indifference to pro-Communists among its appointees would inevitably collide with his aggressive approach to countersubversion.</span></blockquote><blockquote>On the even more contentious question of the Dang channel, Miller wanted to know why the government, after ten months of cooperation on approaches to the NLF, now appeared to be sabotaging the venture. US objectives had not changed, he noted, from the original goals of prisoner exchange and communication on "any broader political matters the NLF might wish to discuss." Loan insisted that he still favored the program, but acknowledged some disagreement on tactics. At the policy level, he noted, there was President Thicu's fear that the Americans were acquiring too much leverage on Saigon in pressing for release of VC prisoners. And there might indeed have been leaks, Loan added, but as a result of poor security in the Interior Ministry and not as a matter of deliberate sabotage.</blockquote><blockquote>The depth of the disagreement over tactics became evident when Miller and Loan met again the next day. Miller, speaking for the Ambassador, wanted the release of all the prisoners requested by Tran Bach Dang, while Loan insisted that the NLF would regard such a concession as a sign of weakness on the anti-Communist side. He thought only two should go back, Tong and the bearer of Dang's original letter, pending the release of prisoners in NLF hands. Miller insisted that such an insignificant gesture would provoke Dang into closing the channel. Loan then took refuge in a jurisdictional argument, asserting that Thieu's delegation of authority to him did not apply to the question at hand, which involved not just operational planning but strategic national policy. He would not, he said, decide whom to release, and Miller asked if he could at least quote him to the Interior Minister as having no objection to the US proposal. After a painful silence, Loan agreed.</blockquote><blockquote>Miller tried to restore a collegial atmosphere, emphasizing the need for a joint approach to the venture, and wondered aloud whether Loan would really prefer to see bilateral US-NLF contacts that excluded the South.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"> Loan pessimistically but presciently replied that it would surely come to that, if not now then later. When this happened, he said, Saigon's forces would face the combined NLF, VC, and North Vietnamese Army alone.</span></blockquote><blockquote>On 1 December [1967], seeing President Thieu on Ambassador Bunker's instructions, Miller got an even stonier reception to the US proposal to release up to ten VC. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Thieu accused thc Americans of naivete and Loan of playing anti-Thieu politics by opposing the release in order to make the President look like an American puppet if he granted it</span>. Professing anxiety that this could undermine his support in both the military and the population at large, Thieu said that, against the background of his internal political problems, prisoner exchange was a "drop of water in the ocean</blockquote> -------------------<br />
<br />
Here is how Robert Kennedy ended his speech:<br />
<blockquote>No war has ever demanded more bravery from our people and our Government—not just bravery under fire or the bravery to make sacrifices—but the bravery to discard the comfort of illusion—to do away with false hopes and alluring promises. </blockquote><blockquote>Reality is grim and painful. But it is only a remote echo of the anguish toward which a policy founded on illusion is surely taking us. </blockquote><blockquote>This is a great nation and a strong people. Any who seek to comfort rather than speak plainly, reassure rather than instruct, promise satisfaction rather than reveal frustration—they deny that greatness and drain that strength. For today as it was in the beginning, it is the truth that makes us free. </blockquote><div>Was Culbert correct about how Robert Kennedy viewed Tet and our involvement in Vietnam? Did Robert Kennedy "insist that Tet was a military disaster for the Americans, and that the South Vietnamese government was "a government without supporters." Or did he say and mean something different, something closer to maybe the truth?</div><div><br />
</div><div>And what about General Loan in all of this? Can he really be characterized as a "good guy?"</div><div><br />
</div><div>Well that's only one CIA author's opinion of what went down and Loan's involvement, I got more....</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div>Next Post: General Loan: "Probably the most feared man in the country"</div><br />
<div><br />
</div>Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-21411316855395377802011-07-01T04:23:00.003-05:002011-07-01T22:18:56.853-05:00Why General Loan is not a "good guy"Okay, so maybe I should have titled this: "Why General Loan should not be described as a "good guy""<br />
<br />
Who am I to decide who is good and bad? I mean that's been the point of these posts, hasn't it? How should we look at someone, how should we classify an act, what factors are important in making a decision on how we should feel about something?<br />
<br />
What started me down the Eddie Adams path was a completely baseless <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Despite-reports-of-the-day-Tet-battle-was-981815.php">assertion</a> from a General Brady and my <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/01/and-you-were-there-only-we-forgot-to.html">response</a> to it. In the process of researching the Tet Offensive, I came across the Eddie Adams photograph and a whole bunch of "facts" regarding what took place and how the photo helped/hurt the Vietnam war effort.<br />
<br />
If you read my blog (Woot! I have three readers now!) you will notice I have a problem with half-truths, lies, propaganda, and ignorance. Opinion is one thing, misstating something because you failed to fully research it is another. I hold a lot of contempt for people who should know (General Brady) and use their power/title (the "General") to further an ideology or perpetuate a false history using innuendo, bogus information, and outright lies. Tet can be looked at objectively for what it was, it does not need to be rewritten using a made-up event and conversation with General Vo Nguyan Giap, the supreme communist commander during Tet.<br />
<br />
The same goes for the Eddie Adams photo, Adams himself, General Loan, and Nguyen Van Lem. The truth is the truth, regardless of where it leads or what it tells you about us, them, or humanity in general.<br />
<br />
We have on record that Eddie Adams called General Loan a "good guy." Now he may have been figuratively speaking, as in - good guy because he was on our side, but that's not what I hear when I <a href="http://www.newseum.org/exhibits-and-theaters/permanent-exhibits/pulitzer/videos/1969-spot-news-edward-adams--the-associated-press.html">listen</a> to him say "good guy."<br />
<br />
In my last <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/06/he-was-good-guy-perspective.html">post</a>, I discussed what makes some one good or bad, and how which side of the fence you are on helps form your response. I contend that it should not matter. Bad is bad and good is good. Which brings us back to General Loan and Adams' assertion that he was a <b><u>good</u></b> guy.<br />
<br />
Hopefully I have been able to support why I believe Eddie Adams used that term to describe the man. I don't think Adams was naive, I do think he was mislead by both General Loan and those that needed the incident to be downplayed. That, and his guilt over the harm the photo caused General Loan (see <a href="http://consilientinductions.blogspot.com/2011/02/eddie-adams-first-cause-no-harm.html">post</a>) lead to the designation of "good guy" he used.<br />
<br />
So, looking at it objectively, was General Loan a "good guy?"<br />
<br />
I contend that he was not. I base this on a lot of background information, CIA reports, and observations from other journalists. I'll show you what I mean, but first I want to print the one account that sealed it for me, an incident that takes General Loan from a "good guy" to not a very nice human being.<br />
<br />
From Tom Buckley's: "Portrait of an Aging Despot", Harper's, April 1972 Page 72:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizVabPb3fQ51pjKaL0-IJyAN8iqswab0I4NJ9jQzJoHOV7GbY6pui1Ycg9Izxqt3Hk-SWJkhm3N1hD7EYRWO72vhyphenhyphenYH2zvibirrjtisMAzDTvAZdud0KWlW5e-NdHxQnpVp1jMnma8fU_G/s1600/Loan+and+the+Cig+Lighter.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizVabPb3fQ51pjKaL0-IJyAN8iqswab0I4NJ9jQzJoHOV7GbY6pui1Ycg9Izxqt3Hk-SWJkhm3N1hD7EYRWO72vhyphenhyphenYH2zvibirrjtisMAzDTvAZdud0KWlW5e-NdHxQnpVp1jMnma8fU_G/s640/Loan+and+the+Cig+Lighter.bmp" width="436" /></a></div><br />
This was after the Tet incident in 1968. Does that sound like someone worthy of the title "good guy?"<br />
<br />
Oh, but wait...there is more.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next Post: And it's one, two, three WHO are we fighting for?<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-21585453190667122222011-06-30T09:21:00.001-05:002011-06-30T12:09:09.264-05:00The "he was a good guy" perspective.I think, of all the things I have read, heard, and seen regarding February 1st, 1968 when General Nguyen Ngoc Loan's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Adams_(photographer)">shot</a> Nguyen Van Lem point blank at An Quang Pagoda in Saigon during the Tet Offensive, the one that perplexes me the most is the <a href="http://eztvlinks.com/war-stories-with-oliver-north-tet-offensive/">statement</a> by Eddie Adams about General Loan:<br />
<blockquote>"He was a good guy. He was fighting for America with Americans. I think he was a goddamn hero."</blockquote>I am not perplexed that he said it, for I think I understand Eddie Adams pretty well and I can accept the various issues in play that formulated it. I don't even think it was inappropriate for him to say, however, the only man that could be accorded the appropriateness to make such a statement <i><u>was</u></i> Eddie Adams.<br />
<br />
What perplexes me is how Eddie Adams allowed himself to make it. It is not an objective statement borne out by facts, facts which he should have known or at least had questions about regarding General Loan. It is easy to understand Eddie Adam's guilt over what happened to General Loan after the photo was taken. One need only read these quotes to see why the aftermath the photo wrought weighed so heavy on his mind.<br />
<blockquote>"Photographs, you know, they're half-truths ... that's only one side...." Adams said. "He was fighting our war, not their war, our war, and ... all the blame is on this guy." (<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18592673">NPR</a>)</blockquote><blockquote>"He was very sick, you know, he had cancer for a while," Adams said. "And I talked to him on the phone and I wanted to try to do something, explaining everything and how the photograph destroyed his life and he just wanted to try to forget it. He said, 'Let it go.' And I just didn't want him to go out this way." (<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18592673">NPR</a>)</blockquote><blockquote>"He never blamed me for the picture. he used a cleche that we here all the time. Eddie, you were doing your job, and I was doing mine. I guess the picture...I'm told it did good things...but I don't want to hurt people either...I really dont.. It really bothers me. thats not my intention in other words, being a photographer, thats not what I want to do." (<a href="http://www.newseum.org/exhibits-and-theaters/permanent-exhibits/pulitzer/videos/1969-spot-news-edward-adams--the-associated-press.html">Newseum</a>) </blockquote>Nevertheless, Eddie Adams was amiss in stating that General Loan was a "good guy." He wasn't wrong to say it, per say, because that's how he saw it. He was wrong to hang the title of "good guy" on General Loan, because he was not a good guy, and not simply because of what he did in that photo.<br />
<br />
First of all, is one a "good guy" because he is on our side? If so, that would make those involved in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre">My Lai Massacre</a> good guys. Were the Japanese good guys for what they did in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre">Nanking</a> China? Or because they were are enemy at the time, they must be seen as "bad guys." Or, are they only bad guys to the Chinese and neutral to us? Assuming "goodness" is a result of what side of the fence you are on, nothing can be viewed as fundamentally bad.<br />
<br />
Does one's side play anything of importance in determining what acts are morally bad or debased; corrupt; perverted? Two members of the House of Representatives, Harold Sawyer of Michigan and Elizabeth Holtzman of Brooklyn worked feverishly to have General Loan deported for what they called his "moral turpitude."<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrZI1-xgsyZogPLYvuGsjdgLKVkPAtR5SM9nCITV9wooso_Zpt82oxSHN-GyhV4ExmBKYQ8ZA_pSWNJF0lgWfJ9mrdSsc0bYjs5_7D1XrFgHvzYRCtzNkVgXyoCBVC1bXlQBSgUEAKcwTy/s1600/Revisionism+and+General+Loan.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrZI1-xgsyZogPLYvuGsjdgLKVkPAtR5SM9nCITV9wooso_Zpt82oxSHN-GyhV4ExmBKYQ8ZA_pSWNJF0lgWfJ9mrdSsc0bYjs5_7D1XrFgHvzYRCtzNkVgXyoCBVC1bXlQBSgUEAKcwTy/s400/Revisionism+and+General+Loan.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
What they contended was that General Loan's actions that day was "conduct that shocks the public conscience." Now we can split hairs on how the law views <a href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/moral-turpitude/">moral turpitude</a>, but that places a definition as what is important and not the actions of General Loan on February 1st, 1968. In this case, can my conscious be shocked without having to claim moral turpitude? Or, does that fact that I find this shocking make moral turpitude the only logical conclusion for General Loan's actions?<br />
<br />
Regardless of my conclusion, what side of the fence I am on should play no part in how I derive the outcome leading to that conclusion. If it does, then "shocking" is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. It's based on external and environmental factors....well. come to think of it, it is!<br />
<br />
There was a documentary on TV a while back (I can't recall the name or station) which showed identical twins watching the same movie but not together. It looked at how each twin reacted to different disturbing scenes. As expected, they both showed similar reactions. Except when one of the twins was a nurse and the other was not. Scenes of an operation elicited no reaction from the nurse, but uneasiness for her sister.<br />
<br />
What does that have to do with General Loan? Does perception play a part in how an act should be perceived? Was the film of the operation in and of itself something that should be seen as distasteful and bring about a feeling of revulsion. Or was it simply another act that should be viewed as nothing more sickening than any other acts that came before it? In this case, can we condemn one twin's non-reaction as depraved or a perversion? Should the other twin be more deserving of the title caring and sensitive...more humane?<br />
<br />
"But an operation performed by a doctor and nurse is not the same thing as firing a bullet into the head of a bound man at point-blank range" you might be thinking. Or is it? In both cases the need to perform an act in a way that many of us would find distasteful at having to watch is present for both. I can't bear the thought of slicing into a man's stomach no more than I can see myself pointing a revolver and releasing a bullet into another man's brain. Should I condemn the doctor and nurse for doing that thing I would never allow myself to do?<br />
<br />
Well, that's a no-brainier (no pun intended) because the doctor is just doing his job. He desires the stomach no harm and the means should justify the end. But what about General Loan? Wasn't he just doing his job that day? Didn't the means justify the end he hoped to bring about as well?<br />
<blockquote>"I respect the Vietcong in uniform. They are fighting men like me. People know when they are wonded I take care of them. I see they get to to the hospital. But when they are not in uniform, they are criminals and the rule of war is death." (1)</blockquote><blockquote>"What do you want us to do? Put him in jail for two or three years and let him go back to the enemy?" (2)</blockquote>So maybe perception does play into it. Maybe which side of the fence you are on <u>will</u> allow you to see the same thing differently than how the person on the other side views it. But that brings was right back to square one. If perception dictates "goodness" then there is no fundamental idea of what is "bad." And more to the point, what is bad enough to be classified as "morally bad or debased; corrupt; perverted."<br />
<br />
When Eddie Adams called General Loan a "good guy" he obviously based that classification on a lot of factors other than one lone event captured on film. Those factors, however, significantly biased his opinion of General Loan, making the statement of "good guy" inappropriate. Without his connection to the man, the photograph, and the aftermath, would Adams have made that same statement? I think not. If Adams looked at General Loan under a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance">veil of ignorance</a>" he would have seen him for what he was. <br />
<br />
So maybe it's not that I am perplexed that he made this statement. What perplexes me is the many dynamics in play that formed the words Adams said to describe General Loan. It's not as simple as folks think it is. It's not about good and evil, black and white, patriot or enemy. Of all the things said by Eddie Adams, this was the most untenable statement of them all, all things considered.<br />
<br />
Without his guilt over what the photo unleashed, and with full knowledge of the kind of man General Loan was, I am pretty sure Adams would not have called him a "good guy." He would have seen General Loan as no different than any other person in a war situation; neither a hero nor a villain; simply just another victim of the circumstances they found themselves in.<br />
<br />
Of course I am speculating here. But from my side of the fence, that's how I see it.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">(1) As reported in Harper's April 1972 article "Portrait of an Aging Despot" page 72:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">(2) As reported in Harper's April 1972 article "Portrait of an Aging Despot" page 72</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><br />
Next Post" Why General Loan is not a "good guy"<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">.</span>Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867248877001342147.post-73129279911716538482011-06-29T09:24:00.000-05:002011-06-29T09:24:27.254-05:00But a photograph is absolute.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #6aa84f;">Note: I have been neglecting my blog. I noticed that this was never posted.</span><br />
<br />
My head hurts. We had a snow day today and work was canceled. So I spent the whole day looking up anything I could find on Eddie Adams, General Loan, Vo Suu, Howard Tuckner, and Nguyễn Văn Lém.<br />
<br />
Believe it or not, there is a not a lot of information out there. There's a lot of crap too, especially crap that does nothing but reprint what somebody else has said - word for word. Can't understand that one, I mean, why bother?<br />
<br />
There is also a lot of crap designed to present information as factual but in no way shape or form is it real. For example, the Wikipedia page on Nguyễn Văn Lém, the guy General Loan shot has the following blurb<br />
<blockquote>Though military lawyers have yet to definitively decide whether Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war (Lém had not been wearing a uniform; nor was he, it is alleged, fighting enemy soldiers at the time), where POW status was granted independently of the laws of war; it was limited to Viet Cong seized during military operations.</blockquote>This one sentence - in a very professional sounding paragraph - is attributed to Major General George S. Prugh (1975). "Prisoners of War and War Crimes". Law at War: Vietnam 1964-1973. Vietnam Studies. United States Army Center of Military History. Retrieved 2006-10-24. <br />
<br />
Well I went to the <a href="http://www.history.army.mil/books/vietnam/law-war/law-04.htm">link</a> listed. This statement was not there. I even went to the actual <a href="http://www.history.army.mil/books/vietnam/law-war/law-fm.htm">document</a> referenced...nothing. So where did the Wikipedia author(s) get that bit of information? Do a search for it and you will find it used a lot, but no where will you find it referenced in any academic or governmental websites. I even searched the Texas Tech University's Vietnam database. Nothing of the sort was said by General Prugh that I can find.<br />
<br />
Which begs the question: why go to all the trouble to write a very scholarly sounding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nguyen_Ngoc_Loan">paragraph</a>, attach a real person's name to it, and then link not one, but two different documents, from the guy, as where this information came from?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQEh4b5F_A9aMkRsrFxl9zXGdB_8AB7hkTsOBwaPok3AemoOKngaWewMbD1eQlcXFafUeuU9dW0AOCo_WGaftcor3Eh6BjQFczKam76wVKSCz-o7kofubNymmfo6YoE0XhnzsztA9_PTAH/s1600/Image13.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQEh4b5F_A9aMkRsrFxl9zXGdB_8AB7hkTsOBwaPok3AemoOKngaWewMbD1eQlcXFafUeuU9dW0AOCo_WGaftcor3Eh6BjQFczKam76wVKSCz-o7kofubNymmfo6YoE0XhnzsztA9_PTAH/s640/Image13.gif" width="640" /></a></div><br />
It's a hoax. And yet again a hoax that uses someone's real name to perpetuate a myth needed for approval. I think I know why it is used in this case, and it goes back to Eddie Adams <a href="http://www.pbs.org/speaktruthtopower/hr_eddie.htm">statement</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Words and pictures have a continuing struggle for primacy. In my mind, a person can write the best story in the world; but a photograph is absolute.</blockquote>His <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_V%C4%83n_L%C3%A9m">photo</a> showing General Loan shooting Nguyễn Văn Lém (aka: Captain Bảy Lốp) was absolute. I wrote about this a few posts back. There is a difficulty rectifying what you see with what you feel; with what you believe; and with what you hold sacrosanct. If he is a <i>good</i> guy then he can't be doing a <i>bad</i> thing. So either you make him a bad guy or you make the thing he did a <i>good</i> thing. Those that can't accept that he was wrong to do shoot him in that manner, work to find ways to justify General Loan's behavior.<br />
<br />
One of those ways is to argue over the "right" to carry out the assassination because Lém and Loan were not under the Geneva convention. Hence the argument over Lem's POW status. They also bring up the fact that Saigon was under Marshall Law and shoot to kill was warranted. It goes on and on.<br />
<br />
Even the simple "well he got what he deserves" justification falls short because we are a nation of laws, and what Loan did was against any law. Period. It cannot be justified if you believe that our behavior is either morally based or we are a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law">nation of laws, not of men</a>.” Nothing, short of a belief in anarchy or <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misanthropic">misanthropic</a> leanings, would allow for behavior such as this.<br />
<br />
What is needed, in my opinion, is to stop trying to justify it and start trying to understand it. It is not about good and bad, saints and devils, or heroes and villains. It is about how easily humanity can be pushed aside and the constant vigilance need to ensure that it does not.<br />
<br />
As another humanitarian put it: Beware the thief in the night.<br />
<br />
<br />
.Jeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02460943442697919502noreply@blogger.com0