Unfit for Command: Chapter 1
I’ve ignored the introduction which pretty much covers the reason for the writing of the book. It’s all hearsay anyway.
Chapter One – Debating Kerry
Sources of this chapter:
Douglas Brinkley, “Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War,” William Morrow, New York, 2004
Kranish, Mooney & Easton, “John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best,” New York: Public Affairs, 2004
I haven’t evaluated these sources myself, but I will try to do so soon.
Basic assertions of this chapter:
Kerry’s June 1971, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was an attack on soldiers he served with in Vietnam.
Proof:
(Unfit For Command): “He compared those of us who served in Vietnam to the army of Genghis Khan, committing war crimes such as rape and baby killing ‘on a day-to-day basis with full awareness of officers at all levels of command’”
(UFC)… how hard we had tried to avoid civilian casualties under terrible conditions…I remembered the fighter pilots who had been killed or were captured because we used small planes and opted for precision bombing in Hanoi… rather than massive, indiscriminate bombing.
(UFC) If John Kerry had just been another politician punching his ticket in the military, I wouldn’t have cared. But for John Kerry to lie at the expense of his former comrades living and dead, in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, just so he could outbid other radicals in the antiwar movement and gain attention was something else. Even his own crew members who now (after long persuasion) support him for president were “pissed”at the time. They ‘knew he was dead wrong,’ and the stomachs ‘turned’ listening to Kerry speak and felt ‘disappointed and betrayed’ (Brinkley)
In a debate on the Dick Cavett show, O’Neill challenged Kerry to list a single war crime committed by their unit, Coastal Division 11. In the debate, Kerry was unable to list a single atrocity that he witnessed.
My Opinion
I am not a warrior myself, but I am married to one, and have several in the family. Till the day he died, my father spoke respectfully of his CO. Even Wife misses the camaraderie of her former life in the Navy. These are relationships that I cannot relate to myself.
However, I sense in this chapter (and the introduction) a deep sense of betrayal that came about through his involvement in the antiwar movement –and most especially his testimony before the Senate. It is clear to me that had Kerry not appeared before the Senate, it is likely that this book would never been written. Nevertheless, Kerry did appear there, and attempted to become a leader in the antiwar movement.
My Questions:
Why did Kerry join the antiwar movement?
Why did Kerry attack not just the war, but the warriors?
September 13th, 2004 at 9:11 pm
Scott —
Read Kerry’s actual testimony and decide for yourself whether he was attacking the soldiers, or speaking for them.
Here it is:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp
I’ll be curious to know your thoughts.
Cheers -
September 13th, 2004 at 10:34 pm
I’ve read it several times actually, and here’s what jumps out at me:
JK: “…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.”
This is a pretty inflamatory statement that would seem to indict the entire military establishment - all the way up to Nixon himself. The important phrase is “not isolated incidents”.
Can you see why that single statement would piss off a lot of veterans - in wartime no less, with POWs in captivity? He’s saying that these men were not fighting with honor, but participating in “day to day” brutality that were outright lies. Did My Lai happen? Of course it did. But was it the de facto standard in Vietnam? Kerry’s testimony says yes - and 260+ Vietnam vets - including those in my family - disagree with his assessment completely.
Kerry screwed up by condemning the entire military - and not just those top brass. I think I understand why he did it: to better fit in with the mood of the time. Keep in mind that this was a time when servicemen were just beginning to be told to wear civilian clothes while off base in order to avoid confrontations with “baby-killer!” shouting activists. This is attested to by an old Chief of the Wife.
This also fits with my suspicion that Kerry was and continues to be “a gunner” - and will say anything and sacrifice anything for power.
That scares the shit out of me.
I’ve finished Chapter 2 - which answers why Kerry chose the path he did as well as his strong antiwar views while in Vietnam. That analysis will come tomorrow.
September 14th, 2004 at 12:30 pm
Hey Scott -
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. My thoughts:
I can definitely understand why lots of folks would be pissed about Kerry’s testimony. I also believe the record supports the claims he made — the *actual* claims he made — not that My Lai was the de facto standard, but that American servicemen were forced to fight under conditions that blurred the line between civilian and enemy, making it impossible for them to fight a clean and honorable war. It was an untenable position for them to be in. Most guys I know that were there (I was not, when I turned 18 the draft was over and they were starting to pull our guys out) will not talk about it.
It’s also a matter of public record at this point that both the Nixon and Johnson administrations lied about the progress of the war to the American public, authorized illegal bombings and incursions into neighboring countries, and deliberately prolonged the war for political reasons, costing 10’s of thousands of American lives, and 100’s of thousands of Vietnamese lives.
Kerry was correct to raise the issues he did.
Regarding Kerry himself, with all respect to you I don’t think you can know, 30+ years later, what his motivations were for starting VVAW or for testifying before the Senate. He may have been caught up in the times, which were intense, much more so than now. Stupid people were calling returning servicemen “baby killers”. Young people were also being shot dead on college campuses. Ask my wife, she was at Kent that day.
I think it’s just as likely that his participation in VVAW, and his testimony before the Senate, were motivated by an honest conviction that the war was a mistake, and was destructive to the nation and to the men asked to fight it.
My personal impression of Kerry (he’s my Senator and was my lieutenant governor) is mixed. I definitely see him as a guy that has his own political advantage in mind. That means he fits right in in DC. If you think Bush is not on that same page, you are mistaken.
To say that he’s a “gunner”, that he “will say anything and sacrifice anything for power”, however, is bogus. I don’t see it justified by his record, his actions, or by anything he’s said. Show me where you get that from.
I also don’t buy the “Kerry will be soft on terror” line. It’s bullshit. It’s not supported by his record, statements, or actions.
If the Swift Boats guys had come out with a statement to the effect of “While we were still fighting, this guy was home undermining support for the war”, I would have no beef with them. Instead, they are trying to show Kerry for a liar and a fraud, and the evidence is not there. It’s libelous. They should shut up.
Respect -
R
September 14th, 2004 at 3:07 pm
RL
Read the book - you’ll agree with it.
Many of the Swifties were against the war. What they are angry about is exactly what you state:
YOU: “If the Swift Boats guys had come out with a statement to the effect of “While we were still fighting, this guy was home undermining support for the war”, I would have no beef with them.”
Unfit for Command (UFC): “Even his own crew members who now (after long persuasion) support him for president were “pissed”at the time. They ‘knew he was dead wrong,’ and the stomachs ‘turned’ listening to Kerry speak and felt ‘disappointed and betrayed’ (Brinkley)”
As I write in my analysis, the Swift Vets are more angry about the betrayal than they are about the medals or the “ticket punching”. But they include it to show a pattern of behavior that they believe makes Kerry “unfit for command”.
I don’t understand how easily you can dismiss 260+ Vietnam Vets. This isn’t one angry man - but a group of men who served together in War. Nevertheless I am not an idiot: I’m Jesuit trained and voted for Dems in every presidential election since 1984.
As for terror, and this is really another subject, but Kerry doesn’t view our actions against terror as a “war”. Instead he views it as more of a police action - which puts us on the defensive and means that we have to wait for terrorists to break the law before they are punished.
Sorry, but I would rather stay alive under Bush then have Kerry avenge my death later.
September 14th, 2004 at 5:23 pm
Hey Scott -
I do not think you are an idiot, and would not think of calling you one.
I have no problem with, and do not dismiss, the SBV (or anyone else) who state that they do not support Kerry because of his positions on Vietnam back in the day. I disagree with them. I believe he was completely correct to take that position, to participate in VVAW, and to make the statements he made before the Senate. Lots of Vietnam vets agree with the SBV, lots of Vietnam vets have the same opinion I do.
I do, however, have a big problem with guys like Thurlow, who says Kerry wasn’t under fire when he pulled Rassman out of the water, when his own Bronze Star citation from the same day refers to enemy fire. And when he tries to keep that information under wraps.
I have a big problem his former CO who says he didn’t deserve the medal, then says he lied and regretted making that claim, then changes his mind again.
I have a big problem with the many other specific, defamatory statements of fact that have proven to be false.
I also have a big problem with the outside counsel of Bush/Cheney ‘04 and the veteran’s liason guy from Bush/Cheney ‘04 being advisors to the SBV.
That other topic:
You seem to believe that Kerry would be unwilling to use the military against terrorists. Why? Where is the evidence for that in Kerry’s statements, record, or actions?
Also regarding terror, as I have mentioned elsewhere I give Bush no high marks. IMO he has, through inaction and ineptitude, made us and the world as a whole far less safe. He is a lifelong screwup and shows no signs of changing his spots. If you’re interested, I will be happy to provide ample and detailed reasons for why I have this opinion. He talks like he means business, but he is not delivering. Good intentions don’t cut it — there’s too much at stake.
If you want you and yours to be safe, Bush may not be your best bet.
With sincere respect -
R.
September 14th, 2004 at 8:41 pm
R
I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks!