September 24, 2004
THE OBJECT OF WAR:
Photographs Do Lie: Why his Pulitzer-winning picture of a South Vietnamese general haunted Eddie Adams for the rest of his life. (Duncan Currie, 09/24/2004, Weekly Standard)
PHOTOJOURNALIST Eddie Adams died last Sunday at age 71, but his place in history is secure. Indeed, Adams made history with his famous picture of South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. Taken in Saigon on February 1, 1968, the picture showed Gen. Loan's point-blank execution of a Viet Cong captain named Bay Lop. The images were searing: Loan's cold grimace; a snub-nosed .38 revolver held inches from Lop's terrified face; the fiercely clenched teeth of an officer standing nearby.It won a Pulitzer Prize for the Associated Press in 1969, and was one of the most influential still photos of the 20th century. But until the day he died, Eddie Adams regretted having taken it.
Actually, that's an understatement. Adams blamed himself for ruining Loan's life. "The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera," was how he put it. His picture told one story; but his contrition for that picture told quite another. [...]
The AP subsequently assigned Adams to follow Loan around Vietnam. Then, a strange thing happened. As Adams later recalled on National Public Radio, "I . . . found out the guy was very well loved by the Vietnamese, you know. He was a hero to them . . . and it just saddens me that none of this has really come out."
Among other things, Adams learned that Loan spent considerable time lobbying for new hospitals in South Vietnam. "It's just a sad statement," Adams said on NPR, "of America. He was fighting our war, not their war, our war, and every--all the blame is on this guy." [...]
Loan died in July 1998, at age 67, from cancer. Torn up by regret, Adams penned a moving eulogy in Time magazine. It was part remembrance, part mea culpa for his 1968 picture. "Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world," he wrote. "People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?' General Loan was what you would call a real warrior, admired by his troops. I'm not saying what he did was right, but you have to put yourself in his position."
Adams also sent the Loan family flowers and a card. "I'm sorry," he wrote. "There are tears in my eyes."
The South Vietnamese paid a terrible price for our squeamishness. Hopefully the Iraqis won't.
MORE:
-The Myth Behind the Famous Eddie Adams 'Execution' Photo (David D. Perlmutter, September 22, 2004, Editor & Publisher)
Adams' photograh captured a left-wing truism. As such it can *never* be refuted regardless of any mere facts. Not that Gen. Loan killed a real spy, it doesn't matter. It *never* matters. 'Truth' always trumps mere facts. Don't you understand? The CAUSE is always more important than the FACTS. How can you not understand this?
Posted by: Gideon at September 24, 2004 10:11 PMAfter the war, the General emigrated to the U.S. He invested in a pizza parlor here in Northern Virginia and I actually went by it a couple of times. I never stopped in, but I wish I had now.
Posted by: Joe at September 24, 2004 10:52 PMThe problem was, the South Vietnamese were not willing to pay a terrible price.
Everyone knew -- or should have, I did -- what Loan did.
You can either approve of or disapprove of shooting prisoners in the situation Loan found himself in. It isn't a left/right thing.
If Loan's life was ruined, it was ruined by his fellow countrymen who did not feel as committed to South Vietnamese nationalism as he did.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 25, 2004 2:48 PMHarry:
You need to get over your pero-communist bent, it/s the 21st century for goodness sake. You guys lost.
As the story says:
" The AP subsequently assigned Adams to follow Loan around Vietnam. Then, a strange thing happened. As Adams later recalled on National Public Radio, "I . . . found out the guy was very well loved by the Vietnamese, you know. He was a hero to them . . . and it just saddens me that none of this has really come out.""
It was filth like Liz Holtzman and the Democrats who ruined his life.
Posted by: oj at September 25, 2004 5:00 PMMy hide-out piece, the one I "take-with" when concealment is paramount, is an S&W Airweight Bodyguard--General Loan's pistol. I often think of that famous photo when I touch this gun. When I reflect on the three volumes of The Gulag Archepelago, I ask myself what I would do with my Bodyguard were I standing to a man who had been part of a conspiracy to kill me, reeducate my family, and drown my country in Stalinist terror.
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 25, 2004 8:58 PMI knew at the time -- it was widely reported -- why Loan shot the man. I personally didn't have any problem with that. Things happen in wartime.
Loan chose to go to war for what I suppose was some political goal; his fellow Vietnamese chose not to go with him.
Tough. If they'd all stood shoulder to shoulder, he might have been the Washington of South Vietnam.
So what? In every war, the losers have regrets.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 25, 2004 10:23 PMAmericans didn't stand shoulder to shoulder with Washington. In fact, they probably didn't support Independence in greater number that the Southerners did in Vietnam. But Britain, fortunately, was no North, nor USSR, nor China.
Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 12:08 AMAbout a third of Americans supported Washington.
That would have worked out to 5 million in South Vietnam.
Nowhere near that many were ready to die for Madame Thieu's racehorses, and why should they?
As Victor Davis Hanson says in his study of Tet, the Communists expected the South Vietnamese to rise up in a war on national liberation, and they didn't; but they didn't rally to the govenment, either.
Loan gave a damn. His fellow countrymen didn't.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 26, 2004 6:21 PMHarry:
They shouldn't have--they had us there to do it for them. As we withdrew they fought quite well but were eventually overwhelmed when Congress betrayed them.
Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 7:15 PMVietnam War was not winnable and two Presidents knew it but continued to sacrifice US soldiers and sailors. Why?
Posted by: John at October 16, 2004 4:17 PMWe won and thecost of not maintaining that victory was higher than the rather minimal losses in the war, as the late 70s demonstrated.
Posted by: oj at October 16, 2004 4:46 PMOJ...."...we won..." Who is we?
Fighting in South Vietnam was the wrong place and therefore unwinnable.
Posted by: John at November 20, 2004 12:20 AM