Kid Rock, Carl von Clausewitz, O'Brien, and General Loan

I 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 response:

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.

Would you not conclude that Kid Rock is an ardent believer in Carl von Clausewitz's first reciprocal action:

"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."

Could one reasonably infer that Kid Rock believes 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." (1)

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."

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 1984, he would quite eagerly respond exactly the same way, would he not?

O'Brien: In general terms, what are you prepared to do?'   

Kid Rock: Anything that we are capable of.

O'Brien: You are prepared to give your lives?

Kid Rock: Yes.

O'Brien: You are prepared to commit murder?

Kid Rock: Yes.

O'Brien: To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?

Kid Rock: Yes.

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?

Kid Rock:    Yes.

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?

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.

Now, look at the definition of moral turpitude:

Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience. 

When looking at what Kid Rock would do and what General Loan did do, which one meets the definition more succinctly?

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.

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."

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.

Look once again at what Robert Kennedy said on February 8th, 1968:

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. 

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? 

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'.

But I could not see Kid Rock, Dick Cheney, or John Yoo 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.

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?

Which side of the coin do we want America to land on, Kid Rock or Robert Kennedy?


Next Post: The "Good Guys" Government: Equally important as the military effort in winning the war

.

Nguyen Van Lem; He's just a plain vanilla V.C.

Note:  I have been neglecting my blog while I worked on other things.  I just noticed that I never posted this.

My last post focused on how the deeds of Nguyen Van Lem (aka: Bay Lop) - the man shot by General Loan on February 1st, 1968 during the Tet  offensive - have been exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous.  Yet they persist and are spread from one book to another and from one website to another.

So lets look at "former Judge BAI AN TRAN, Ph. D. Professor of the National Police Office Academy, Vietnam." full accounting of what Nguyen Van Lem had done right before General Loan shot him:

Now I suppose one could argue that Nguyen Van Lem may have been the one who killed the Lt. Col, and his six kids.  But that happened in Go Vap according to President Nguyen Van Thieu.  The execution took place at the An Quang Pagoda which was on the other side of town from Go Vap:

That's a long way to go from start of the attack at Go Vap to the An Quang Pagoda where he was caught.  And if my time line is correct, Nguyen Van Lem was shot by General Loan about 32 hours after the start of the Tet Offensive.

And what about the reason for killing Lieutenant Colonel Nguyen Tuan attributed to Nguyen Van Lem?

After communist troops took control of the base, Bay Lop arrested Lieutenant Colonel Nguyen Tuan with his family and forced him to show them how to drive tanks. When Lieutenant Colonel Tuan refused to cooperate, Bay Lop killed all members of his family including his 80-year-old other. There was only one survivor, a seriously injured 10-year-old boy.

Here is what the Combat Operations After Action Report (RCS: MACJ3-32)(K-1) has to say about what took place in Go Vap.

So now we know that Nguyen Van Lem could not have forced anyone to drive a tank since there were no tanks there.  Unless you don't want to believe the AAR - then you should probably stop reading because all I will be doing is supporting my thesis with data I believe has not been manipulated in order to better tell the Adams/Loan/Lem story.


The story of Nguyen Van Lem is just that, a story.  Propaganda designed to take the sting out of what was shown to the world in that photo and news footage of General Loan shooting him. 


Even Eddie Adams was was taken in by it:

Well, we found out later, it wasn't 'til about a couple days later, that we found out that the guy was a Viet Cong lieutenant, and he had  killed the policemen from the second  story of the building [i]n the area where we were, and they had grabbed him  immediately.  And he supposedly had  papers saying that he was a lieutenant in the Viet Cong. (1)

And 

And I didn't find this out much later, but the prisoner who was killed had himself killed a police major who was one of Loan's best friends, and knifed his entire family.  The wife, six kids...  the whole family.  When they captured this guy, I didn't know that.  I just happened to be there and took the picture. (2)

And with Adams unknowingly, or unwittingly, or reluctantly on board with it, the remaking of General Loan from a "villain" to a "godamn hero" was now on its way.


.

Nguyen Van Lem; Could he be made more despicable?

Do a Google search using the terms; General Loan, Eddie Adams, Nguyen Van Lem and you will get a boat load of websites and blogs that seem to repeat the same three themes:

1. The media showed the photo and film without context.
2. General Loan had the right to execute the man under the Geneva Convention because he was "not in uniform."
3. Nguyen Van Lem (Bay Lop) was responsible for killing scores of people before he was shot by General Loan.

Each site parrots the same basic wording and contention of the next.  So bad info, incorrect info, misleading info, biased info, and just plain ridicules info is passed on as fact.

The purpose of these posts on Eddie Adams, General Loan, and Nguyen Van Lemon is to put factual - supported - information out there, cite it correctly, and then as objectively as I can, paint a picture of the as-true-as-possible context.  We owe it to the future to get this past described correctly - unless you think its okay to believe something that is false at best, propaganda at worst.

I wrote in a previous post about all the different ways Nguyen Van Lem (aka: Bay Lop) has been described - including how General Loan misidentified the man he shot even up till 1979 (Buckley, Esquire, June 5, 1979):

So what I want to look at this time, is how Nguyen Van Lem (aka: Bay Lop) was made out to be so gosh-darn evil whereby a bullet to his brain was not just justified, but warranted.

Now if you read my post on why I believe he was shot, you would conclude that if I am correct in my analysis, who he was or what he did played not a part in the pulling of the trigger by General Loan.  So why this need to emphasize just how downright nasty Nguyen Van Lem's deeds that day were?

It all comes back to context.  Not the real context in play that day, but the need to have what transpired that day fit into a neat little box whereby we can say General Loan - who was on our side - did not do anything wrong that day, therefore we can support him.  He can't be a "villian," he needs to be a "goddamn hero."

But he did do something unequivocally wrong that day.  He summarily executed a bound man.  That fact is undeniable.  Why he did it or who he did it to does not negate that fact.  And instead of understanding it for what it is, understanding the dynamics in play that day, understanding the situation at hand, understanding General Loan's background and motivations, we instead try to justify them simply as right/wrong so we can choose a side - hawk/dove, good guys/bad guys, won the war/lost the war.

And because you can't justify what General Loan did with any factual mandate (Bible allows it, war allows it, Geneva convention allows it), it has to become justified using the fine art of storytelling.  So the truth has been intermixed with a false series of explanations and dialog.  All brought forth as a way to say "he ain't a bad guy, he's one of us...and we ain't bad guys!"

Now the purpose of my posts on this topic is not to condemn, vilify, elevate, absolve, or trivialize General Loan.  It is what it is, and as much as I hate that statement, well, it is what it is.  What's important to me is that factual information be presented in an effort to understand what took place that first day in February, 1968.  And by understanding, one can decide if General Loan should be condemned, vilified, elevated, absolved, trivialized, and, if possible, unequivocally forgiven.

The context that many of these hawkish/right leaning sites expound on is what has become diluted and tainted over these last forty years, and its genesis seems to have begun right after the photo and the film were shown to the world the next day.

So lets look at this oft quoted statement by "former Judge BAI AN TRAN, Ph. D. Professor of the National Police Office Academy, Vietnam."

Minutes before he was captured, Bay Lop had killed a RVN policeman's wife and all of his family members including his children. Around 4:30 A.M., Nguyen Van Lem led a sabotage unit along with Viet Cong tanks to attack the Armor Camp in Go Vap. After communist troops took control of the base, Bay Lop arrested Lieutenant Colonel Nguyen Tuan with his family and forced him to show them how to drive tanks. When Lieutenant Colonel Tuan refused to cooperate, Bay Lop killed all members of his family including his 80-year-old mother. There was only one survivor, a seriously injured 10-year-old boy. (1)

Now look at the speech given by President Nguyen Van Thieu before the Joint Session of the National Assembly (Senate & House) February 9, 1968 (Page 61 & 62)



Does that sound kind of familiar?

Now, compare that with what the New York Times quotes Eddie Adams as stating:

[M]r. Adams, who accepted Brig. Gen. Loan's contention that the man he shot had just murdered a friend of his, a South Vietnamese army colonel, as well as the colonel's wife and six children.

Doesn't that just seem a bit too coincidental?  Its such a fitting response to take the sting out of what everyone had just witnessed the good guys doing.  "Oh yeah...well he killed six kids!"

Now my point in all of this is not to exonerate or condemn the man on the left or the man on the right in that famous picture. It is simply to have that photo judged truthfully.  It's impact cannot be denied but the stories of the how and why has lead people to a false dichotomy.  In other words, if you are going to call General Loan a "hero" or a "despot" or a "villain" or judge his actions as acceptable or him personally as "morally unfit" you should do so based on as accurate a description of the persons involved - as well as what took place and the possible motivation/thinking/actions of the participants - as can reasonably be supported.  

That's the only context that is necessary.  Anything else is just propaganda.

.

The problems of the how's and why's

Note: I have done a lot more research on this topic since I started the particular post.  So I am going to continue with the theme I originally started with.

I have been doing a bunch of research on General Nguyen Ngoc Loan's assassination of Nguyen Van Lem (aka: Bay Lop) which was caught on film by NBC and still by Eddie Adams.  I am trying to answer a couple of questions that have made themselves apparent during this quest.

1. What did General Loan say to the reporters?  Which version is closest to the actual statement?
2. What did General Loan know about the man he was going to execute?  Was Lem guilty of everything you read about him?

I am also trying to put into context Eddie Adams' statements regarding the photo he took and the path it lead both him and General Loan down.  Although I had seen the photo before, I knew nothing about what took place February 1st,  1968.  It's not like I'm some teenager bored in history class.  I missed the Vietnam war by three years.  I should know more, but I don't.  So this has been a history lesson that I have enjoyed, although it deals with a pretty gruesome topic and a very costly war in terms of humanity.

What I have found in this short time is that I like Eddie Adams.  What I have also found is that we, as a society that has used his photo to add to our own individual and collective narrative, have misused it to suit our own needs.  In addition, by not fully understanding - accepting really - the context, we have made it into something that sounds good but has no legs to stand on to support that description of what it really shows.  Then, when we hear Adams talk about this very problem, we take his words out of context as well, all to satisfy some primal need to have our view of what it shows be the one everybody should accept.

But what should we see when we look at the photo or watch the NBC film?  What if - as historian David Culbert contends - all the photo and film showed us was the result and not the cause...the reason?  Without background or context, readers saw a merciless Loan and a defenseless Lop.(5)  What reason is needed to fully understand the photo?

We humans like to categorize things, put them into nice little cubbies like our shoes and lunch boxes.  But this photo presents a different that makes categorizing very difficult.  If you are to be intellectually honest, you realize that it is extremely difficult to give General Loan's actions an unqualified "it was okay" or "it was wrong."  Those two cubbies don't work for this without a bit of morality wrestling.

Is there never a case where executing a man on the spot would be warranted?  And, if it's okay to execute a bound man without a trial because he's a terrorist, then its okay for our enemy to make the same designation.  And if war changes everything making this act acceptable in those conditions, then the Bataan death march and the massacre at Goliad would be acceptable as well.

You see, it gets complicated.  So somewhere between never and always there is point where we shift from one side to the other.  But does that shift make it acceptable or does that shift make it only understandable?  Does knowing the reason why the man on the right side of the photo was shot change our perception of the man on the left?  What reason to you have to be told to make this acceptable?

What if the reason the man in the photo was shot was because:

Minutes before he was captured, Bay Lop had killed a RVN policeman's wife and all of his family members including his children. Around 4:30 A.M., Nguyen Van Lem led a sabotage unit along with Viet Cong tanks to attack the Armor Camp in Go Vap. After communist troops took control of the base, Bay Lop arrested Lieutenant Colonel Nguyen Tuan with his family and forced him to show them how to drive tanks. When Lieutenant Colonel Tuan refused to cooperate, Bay Lop killed all members of his family including his 80-year-old mother. There was only one survivor, a seriously injured 10-year-old boy. (1)

Or would it matter if the reason was:

Nguyen Van Lem was captured near a mass grave with 34 innocent civilian bodies. Lem admitted that he was proud to carry out his unit leader's order to kill these people. Lem was in his shorts and shirt. His arms were tied from the back. The pistol was still in his possession. General Loan executed Nguyen Van Lem on the spot. (1)

Or what if the reason hit close to home for General Loan?

Lem commanded a Viet Cong assassination and revenge platoon, which on that day had targeted South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers' families; Lem was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Loan's deputy and close friend. (2)

 [He] had killed some Saigon civilians, many of them relatives of police in the capital." (5)

[I]t was at this point that Loan summarily executed, in the presence of a wire service photographer, a VC captured after killing the entire family of one of Loan' s senior officers. (9)

The prisoner was identified, accuraetly probably, as the commander of a Vietcong sapper unit.  He was said to have had a revolver in his possession when he was captured and to have killed a policeman. (From Harper's April 1972 Tom Buckley "Portrait of an Aging Despot")

 Or what if Eddie Adams, the photographer, gave the reason as:

Well, we found out later, it wasn't 'til about a couple days later, that we found out that the guy was a  Viet Cong lieutenant, and he had killed the policemen  from  the second story  of the building [i]n the area where we were, and they had grabbed  him  immediately.  And he supposedly had  papers saying that he was a lieutenant in the Viet Cong. (6)

[T]he victim had just murdered one of Loan's best friends and knifed to death his entire family.(7)

[T]he man he shot had just murdered a friend of his, a South Vietnamese army colonel, as well as the colonel's wife and six children. (8)

 Or what if he wasn't Viet Cong, but someone else of importance in your enemy?

The prisoner had not been in the Viet Cong military but was ''a very high ranking'' political official. (4)

Or what if you had to shoot him there on the spot to retain leadership in a time of war?

[I]t had not been the rash act it might have appeared to be but had been carried out because a deputy commander he had ordered to shoot had hesitated. ''I think, 'Then I must do it,' '' he recounted. ''If you hesitate, if you didn't do your duty, the men won't follow you.'' (4)

Or what if the reason was mistaken identity?

"They tell me he had a revolver, that he wonded one of my policemen, that he spit in the face of the men who captured him.  They say that they know this man.  He is not a namelss civilian, as the press says. He is Nguyen Tan Dat, alias Han Son." (3)

Or what if the reason - as Vice President Ky eluded - so what?

The foreign press made a lot of news about this death, but none of you wrote about the Viet Cong.  Why worry about one damned V.C. terrorist when they are killing thousands of Vietnamese officers, men, women, and children?" (6)

Or what if the reason was a difference in how a foreign culture looks at life?

[A] typically corrupt oriental official who obviously has neither concern  for human life nor respect for public opinion.(7)

Or what if the reason was simply that it was an act of war?

So, the fact that if you captured a man in that tense, urban civil  war  context and shot him, in that  highly  irregular, and  tense circumstances did not strike me as an act of wickedness--it's  an act, a very sad  act, but  it's an act of  war, in that context.  Now without knowing who the one was or what the police were up against at that particular time in the Battle of Saigon I can understand that it could be interpreted  by others, but  that was my judgement. (8)

Or what if it was the heat of the moment?

"I am not a politician." Loan said.  "I am not a cheif of police.  I am just a soldier.  When you see a man in civilian clothes with a revolver killing your people...when many of your people have already been killed, then what are you supposed to do? (From Harper's April 1972 Tom Buckley "Portrait of an Aging Despot")

Does the context matter here?  Does the reason change how we should perceive what the man on the left did to the man on the right?  Does it matter that Loan was a General?  The guy in charge that day? The man that had the power and ability to have sent him to jail for the courts to decide his fate?  The Saigon was being attacked since 2:00 am on Wednesday?  That there were snipers, and death all around?  All of these dynamics were in play that morning of February 1st, 1968.

And if you are intellectually honest, you will conclude that the reasons given for General Loan's actions that day have moved from fact to distortion, and in some cases, to tall tale.  We need a reason so we can put General Loan in a cubby and move on.  Hero or villain, good or evil, rightness or wrongness.

So what reason do you need to be told?

And although this action took place on a Thursday, what if General Loan had simply turned to Eddie Adams and the other reporters and said simply; "I don't like Mondays?"

And the lesson today is how to die

And then the bullhorn crackles

And the captain tackles

With the problems of the how's and why's

And he can see no reasons

'Cos there are no reasons

What reason do you need to die?

Next post: The man on the left had to shoot the man on the right

Eddie Adams: Historians have failed you. Part 1 of how many?

Argggg.

I have spent the last week learning all I can about Eddie Adams and what transpired on February 1st, 1968.  Like I have said, and will continue to say, there is a lot of bad information out there.  And today it just got worse.

I cite my work so one can see where it came from.  I try to go to the original source when I can.  So when I read the Weekly Standards' piece called "Photographs Do Lie" and I see:

Adams frequently offered a qualified defense of Loan's infamous act. Within context, and given the inevitable fog of war, he would say, the killing was understandable, if not excusable. As historian Robert D. Schulzinger points out in A Time for War, the executed VC fighter "had killed some Saigon civilians, many of them relatives of police in the capital."

I think cool, maybe now I'll get closer to finding out if the oft quoted - in one form or fashion - statement is factual:

 Lém [the man General Loan shot] was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Nguyễn's deputy and close friend, and six of whom were Nguyễn's godchildren. Photographer Adams confirmed the South Vietnamese account, although he was only present for the execution. (From Wikipedia 2/5/11)

So I look up "A Time of War" and discover it was written by a Yale Professor:

Cool!  An academic - Yale guy too!  These guys are held to a higher standard for the stuff they write, especially a historian.  They need to do their research and get it correct, their reputation as a scholar is on the line.

So I look up "A Time of War" on Google and here is what I find:

Notice it?  February 3rd?  It happened on the 1st and appeared in the New York Times on the 2nd and was broadcast on NBC and ABC on the 2nd too!  Don't believe me...look at my proof (I suck at Photoshop btw, so it's legit):

C'mon Professor, do a little homework and proofreading as well.  Take some pride in your work my good man!

Here's the thing.  With this failure to get these simple, well known, and important facts straight, the rest of the paragraph is now suspect.

I am waiting to get my hands on Bailey and Lichity's "Rough Justice on a Saigon Street" as well as Tom Buckley's "Portrait of an aging despot."  We will see where this take me.

Nevertheless, for such and iconic photo and important historical event, a Yale Ph.D and historian Dr.Schulzinger should have gotten this little bit of really important and easily found information correct.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to not get our facts straight!


Note: 2/6/11: I removed my conclusion.  Upon looking at what I wrote it implied that the rest of his statement regarding the the Vietcong fighter captured and shot by General Loan who "had killed some Saigon civilians, many of them relatives of police in the capital" was suspect because of incorrect dates used. Although that is a reasonable argument to cast suspicion on the whole work, I am being hypercritical to the point of not using objectivity and critical thinking.  In other words, I should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.




Next Post: The problems of the how's and why's


.

What did General Nguyen Ngoc Loan really say on February 1, 1968?

It started with a letter to the editor I read in the San Antonio Express News whereby a reader felt that what  columnist, Patrick Brady, had wrote "is indistinguishable from the viral e-mails on the Internet that don't have to adhere to professional or ethical standards."

Now Patric Brady is no ordinary columnist, he is a retired two star General, a Medal of Honor winner, and a Vietnam vet.  So two days later, I read a different column written by the General called "Despite reports of the day, Tet battle was American victory" which has in it a statement of first-hand knowledge that just did not look factual to me.

Gen. William Westmoreland asked me to go to Vietnam and meet with Giap to arrange a documentary wherein Giap agreed to declare Tet the communist calamity it was. I met with Giap, but we never got the film done.

Now like I said in my post written about this, I don't know really anything about Tet other than it was in Vietnam and happened during the war.  So I went looking for an answer to my question: did General Giap really say that?

I went looking because General Brady had two days prior been called out for presenting "demonstrably false information to the public."  Could this also be another case of false information passed of as factual?  Surely not from a two star General, twice in a span of two weeks, and in a major newspaper to boot.

The internet is an interesting place.  It is filled with information, most of it a regurgitation of someone else's work, or heavily skewed to present a particular point of view.  But in and amongst all this bad stuff, if you look hard enough, you will find enough information to lead you to a clearer picture of an event.

I learned a lot about Tet.  I also came away understanding that it was not a victory for the communists, in fact, what they wanted to happen, a mass uprising of the people, did not take place.  I also came away convinced that Walter Cronkite did not lose the war for us, and, as Oliver North said in his show, Vietnam was "a very uncivil, civil war."  I also came across a website that made me suspect that, like in General Brady's previous column, his comments about General Giap were indistinguishable from the viral e-mail shown on the site.

And in the course of looking at one website after another on Tet and General Giap, one particular event kept getting mentioned over and over again as well.  That was the photo by Eddie Adams.

And when I began to read about it, I came across a number of statements attributed to Eddie Adams that just did not ring authentic.  In particular:

He was a good guy.  He was fighting for America with America.  I think he was a goddamn hero.

Really?  A hero?  Well I found out through researching Adams that this was indeed a true statement regarding Nguyen Ngoc Loan, who was chief of South Vietnam’s national police and is the one seen pulling out the pistol and shooting the man.  I also found something else out; context matters.

I have spent the last couple of days learning as much as I could about Eddie Adams' photograph that first day of February, 1968.  When you read all the things written about what took place, and you see the subtle changes to the story, when you see quoted statements attributed to Adams that do not convey what he was trying to get across, and then you hear the man yourself - in his own words - well it's a real disservice to the man.  One I hope to correct some of this with my next post.

The journey down this road continues....

Wikipedia got me started on this, they cited the New York Times, and just to show you I am serious about getting my facts correct, I went to the library and got a copy of that particular front page of February 2nd, 1968:

So here is what I can confirm in the Wikipedia article on Eddie Adams so far:  The statement: "John G. Morris recalls that; (Theodore M. Bernstein), "determined that the brutality manifested by America's ally be put into perspective, agreed to run the Adams picture large, but offset with a picture of a child slain by Vietcong, which conveniently came through from AP at about the same time". Nonetheless, it is Adams's photograph that is remembered while the other far less dramatic image was overlooked and soon forgotten" appears to be a true accounting.

During this journey I also began to notice a difference in what General Loan is quoted as saying after he shot Nguyen Van Lam that day.  So I went out looking.  So what exactly did Loan tell Adams immediately following the execution?  Here is what I have been able to uncover:

• "They killed many Americans and many of our people" (New York Times, Feb 2, 1968)
• "'They killed many of your people and many of my men." (Adams heard on one NPR story)
• "They killed many Americans and many of my people." (Peter Arnett from his book)
• "He killed many of my men and many of your people. ( "War Stories with Oliver North)
• "They killed many of my men and many of your people." (An Unlikely Weapon)
• "They killed many of our people and many of yours." (NPR story quoting Adams)
• "They killed many of my people, and yours, too." (Horst Faas, Adams' Editor)
• "These guys kill a lot of our people, and I think Buddha will forgive me." (Vo Suu, the NBC cameraman with Adams that day)
•  They killed many Americans and many of my men.  Buddha will understand.  Do you? (Paper soldiers: the American press and the Vietnam War)
• Many Americans have died recently.  So have many of my best friends.  Buddha will understand.  Do you? (Life Magazine, March 1, 1968)
• Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamise friends.  Now do you understand?  Buddha will understand. (The American culture of war: the history of U.S. military force from World)
• "Many Americans have died recently, So have many of my best friends. Buddha will understand—do you? (Time, Feb 23, 1968)
• “These guys kill a lot of our people, and I think Buddha will forgive me.” (NBC Cameraman Vo Suu - The New York Times article on Loan's death - July 16, 1998)

The quote "Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamese friends.  Now do you understand?  Buddha will understand." is often cited from a transcript that appears in George A. Bailey and Lawrence W. Lichty, Rough Justice on a Saigon Street: A Gatekeeper Study on NBC's Tet Execution Film," Journalism Quarterly 49:2 (Summer 1972)

David D. Perlmutter an associate professor at the Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University, and a senior fellow at the Reilly Center for Media and Public Affairs states:

General Loan's own words are variously quoted, but in the most accepted version, he commented to the journalists, “Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamese friends. Now do you understand? Buddha will understand.” from Photojournalism and Foreign Affairs, David D. Perlmutter, Orbis Volume 49, Issue 1, Winter 2005, Pages 109-122 

Why do we accept that version and not the one in the New York Times or the one used fairly consistently by Eddie Adams, who was there?  What I find odd is that for such an iconic photo that has been discussed over and over, Dr. Perlmutter has been the only one I have found so far to acknowledge that there are different versions of what Loan said that day.  And what he said exactly is important, getting it right is important.

Why do I write this blog that no one reads, because the search is fun.  Here is a prefect example of what is assumed to be the truth may not be.  General Loan said something, but he did not say it in more than one way.  One of those comments attributed to him is correct, or none of them are, but what is now clear to me, is that at some point, words were added or deleted between Feb 2 and Feb 23.  I find this fascinating.

Today I just sent an email to Dr. Perlmutter

Hello


I was wondering if you might provide some insight on this.


The Feb 2, 1968 New York Times on page 12 under the photo titled "DEATH" has General Loan saying "They killed many of Americans and many of our people."  Your 2004 tribute to Adams has the General saying ""Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamese friends. Now do you understand? Buddha will understand." 


Adams, in every interview I have listened to, states it as the former.  The version you use is in your 2004 article called "The Myth Behind the Famous Eddie Adams 'Execution' Photo" is attributed to George A. Bailey and Lawrence W. Lichty, Rough Justice on a Saigon Street: A Gatekeeper Study on NBC's Tet Execution Film," Journalism Quarterly 49:2 (Summer 1972).


The version you use is consistent with what the Times article "World: By Book & Bullet" Friday, Feb. 23, 1968  (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837937,00.html) which has General Loan saying ""Many Americans have died recently. So have many of my best friends. Buddha will understand—do you?"


Was General Loan's comment captured on tape or film, or was this recollection of what he said - regarding Buddha understanding - something that was document sometime after the event but prior to the Times Feb 23, 1968 article?


What do you make of these inconsistencies in what was said by General Loan?  I understand that they basically say the same thing, but they are very different in terms of the wording used and the comment about Buddha in one and not in the other.


Thank you,

Next post: Eddie Adams: First cause no harm.


.