" 

 I think I understand what this discussion is about.  As a military historian, this problem comes up a lot.  This is how it looks to me.  Mr. Hanley and AP have done a serious job of historical investigation of a subject.  In doing so, they have uncovered very strong evidence of a massacre of civilians by US troops in Korea, and a coverup of said massacre at various points by the US military.  This is neither unusual nor earth shaking news.  Official history nearly always carefully overlooks the transgressions of one's own side, and this is as true of the US military as it is of any other military.  One can cite examples from as long ago as the Indian wars up through yesterday's reports from the War on Terror.  In every nation's military, there is a similar view - letting the home population in on all the ugly things that happen in war undermines popular support for the war effort, thus it is seen as the duty of the military to hide actions that will upset the folks at home, and to deny them if they are alleged, and to conduct ""investigations"" whose purpose is to reassure one's population of the moral uprightness of one's actions.  These secrets, mind you, are not concealed from the ""enemy"", or even our ""friends"" whose country we may be fighting in.  They already know about it.  So it is not a shattering revelation to suggest that the evidence points to a cover up of the No Gun Ri massacre. 

 The next question cuts closer to the bone.  When such an incident comes to light, the immediate effort is to limit the damage, to suggest this was the action of one or two bad apples, troops who cracked for one reason or other, to insist that the casualties inflicted were smaller than charged, and that it was an aberration.  There is not infrequently an effort to suggest that the deceased brought it on themselves; didn't follow instructions, were actually enemy combatants, were shielding enemy combatants, etc.  Again, standard responses.  They are to be expected, and have been seen over and over again.  The motivation is to separate the incident from the mission.  This is where the ""final defensive fires"" of rhetoric and argumentation is usually the densest.  If it is suggested that the fault lies not with the lieutenants and captains down at platoon and company level, but is actually the logical outcome of policies coming from division, corps, army or theater command, then a very different picture emerges.  It suggests not just that a few of our brave boys acted badly, it suggests that our country is engaged in a conflict where our top commanders do not care at all for the lives of the country we are allegedly there to protect.  That goes right to the heart. 

 In this case, we are expected to believe that while a few troops may have acted out of fear, ignorance, misunderstanding, or ""appropriate"" fear that the civilians could have been Inmun Gun (DPRK soldiers), but that such fear, ignorance and disregard for the lives of Koreans could not possibly have infected the commanders of divisions, corps, armies, and the sainted Douglas MacArthur himself.  In other words, some folks believe it is vital that the US must be the ""good guys"", and so it is impossible to accept that we could have, by policy, been willing to murder civilians. 

 I would suggest from reading the above correspondence, and articles regarding the incident, and this discussion, that Mr. Neck is simply attempting to prevent the article from appearing as written because it contradicts the clean black and white picture he cherishes, that the US military are the Good Guys, and so anything that suggests otherwise must be beaten down.  I do hope the editors of Wikipedia will prevent him from sabotaging this important contribution to real US history.  My friends who are field grade officers in the US military have shared with me their disgust at coverups of actual crimes we have committed, and believe that such are detrimental to their mission of defending our country.  If we are lied to by the likes of Mr. Neck, and assured that we always ""do the right thing"", we as a public are unable to grasp why we seem to have so many dedicated enemies.  "