Mudville Gazette: The Swifts

Milbloggers & Swift Vets:

The Mudville Gazette is conducting interviews with the Swift Vets. I have some thoughts on the matter which I haven't had time to put down, and I don't really have time to put them down now. As a sketch:

1) It's interesting that the Swift Vets who oppose Kerry are not his boatmates, but (a) those from the boats teamed with his, and (b) his chain of command (which was pretty long, since he was a Lt. Junior Grade). His surviving boatmates seem to be supporting him.

2) I wonder if this has something to do with perspective. Consider the much-discussed case of the ambush in which Kerry's boat rescued an overboard Special Forces Lt. Early on in the fight, Kerry's boat speeded out of the kill zone. From the point of view of a draftee in the boat, that's quick thinking that saved your butt. From the point of view of every other boat (and his commanders), that's breaking formation, and skitting away with the backup you yourself are depending upon. Different opinions of whether or not it was the right thing to do are only natural.

Similarly, people under fire see and hear different things, and combat does strange things to the memory (as do other high-stress events like violent crime: ask any cop how many different stories he will usually get from eyewitnesses to the same crime). A number of these differences in accounts are to be expected -- indeed, speaking as a historian, they would be conspicuous by their absence.

3) That kind of thing can clear up only some of the disputes, however. I see little joy for Kerry in the "Christmas in Cambodia" business. His office has let this one go for days now without a response (except to say that he was misquoted, which doesn't wash because the quote is in the Congressional Record), and I'm starting to wonder if it's because there isn't one.

4) Then there are the real charges of war crimes, in particular indiscriminate shooting at civilians. Frankly, this one seems highly likely to be true. I say that because it isn't a disagreement: both parties have attested to it. Kerry himself stated that he did it: "I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages." The Swift Vets' claims only echo what Kerry himself has said. The odds, if you like to calculate odds, are highly in favor of Kerry being guilty of some of these war crimes.

5) There remain other claims that will take time to evaluate. Foremost among these is the charge that Kerry was sent out of Vietnam by a chain of command that didn't trust him -- that is a devastating charge, but one that needs full examination. Second is the charge that he faked or manipulated his medals. That one I have considered disproven thanks to Snopes; we'll see if there is new evidence or not.

6) The brutality of the political response to these charges has not encouraged me to believe that Kerry is the victim. Neither has the refusal to release his records. But the worst thing of all has been that he hasn't answered the charges. He's got a lot to answer for, particularly on the Cambodia and war crimes questions, where his own recorded statements are evidence against him. These are not small matters, but accusations Kerry made that great crimes were committed under his eyes and under his command. It is past time that he answered to the charges he has himself raised.