Torture of Duty X: Not Dates for Destiny

I'm almost finished with Tour of Duty (finally!) and while I can say that in some ways Brinkley has succeeded in inspiring a limited admiration for Kerry's courage, that has been at the price of any admiration for Brinkley's craft as historian. He's plain sloppy.

In earlier posts I deconstructed the text in a semi tongue-in-cheek fashion, using close reading skills from my underused English Language and Literature M.A. (have to keep those muscles toned!). My thesis was that the book was mythologizing with the intent of creating a sense of destiny for a Kerry presidency. I would not rate this book as successful, if that is the indeed the intent. Much of the reason for its failing is that Brinkley is sloppy. But he isn't alone in his sloppiness; the Kerry campaign too has an affinity for casual employment of facts. It seems to be a magnet for those who put results ahead of integrity. All means, even being mean and miscalculating the mean, are justified in the end by the end, if that end is achieved.

I can demonstrate the sloppiness of both Brinkley and the Kerry campaign with a simple comparison of some dates cited in each, and a comparison of those dates to the dates cited on official U.S. Navy documents posted on the Kerry campaign web site in pdf form. You can duplicate this exercise at home. Please don't blame me for any accidental injury to innocent beliefs in the reliability of things either printed in books or stated on the Kerry campaign site.

To accomplish this in a form as clear and simple as possible, I'll employ a table. I'll discuss the significance below. Because the Kerry campaign site has things added, modified and deleted without explanation or "leaving tracks," I will also include a screenshot of the pertinent section below.

I find it amusing that the campaign site lists the following as source for the timeline: "[Source: Boston Globe, “John Kerry, the Making of a Candidate”, 6/15/03-6/21/03; Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, Published by William Morrow 2003; Selective Service System, National Headquarter]."

Excerpt from Timeline on Kerry Campaign Site

First, the craft of the historian aims to nail down as well as possible the facts of the past. Often it simply isn't possible to arrive at one single definitive conclusion. Thus the careful historian will present the material from as many sources as can be judged to be reasonably reliable, mention caveats on that reliability, and then advance his best judgment as which interpretation is most likely true. In cases where one or more are of relatively equal likelihood, all may be offered with explanations.

That does not describe Brinkley's work as demonstrated in the table above. He appears to have described the events surrounding Kerry's release from active duty incorrectly when compared to the official documents. If he, for some reason, considers those documents to be in error, he should in any case cite them and explain why he considers that his dates and descriptions are more correct. Further, he does not state specifically the sources for what he chooses to present as truth. He gives general information on sources; he does not tie that information to specific sources so that it can be verified by others. Social sciences are often called "soft sciences," true, but this does not rise to that designation; it's more in the class of, well, journalists, or even politicians. Take the dates on the campaign timeline, for example.

Further, Brinkley is sloppy in that he calls this "separation from active duty" an "honorable discharge" here in the main text (see quote below). Later in the timeline Brinkley places in the back matter he describes it more correctly as an "early discharge from active duty," but gets the date wrong. Kerry did not apply on January 3, 1970, he applied on November 21, 1969. The discharge was in fact granted on January 2, 1970. The January 3, 1970 date is the date the discharge was effective, allowing Kerry one day to get home from Brooklyn to Groton, his home of record.

Second, one has to wonder when seeing variance in facts, such as these, whether it's simple sloppiness or whether there is a deliberate intent to communicate something other than the facts. There is at least one potential reason why Brinkley and the campaign might wish to suggest that Kerry ended his military obligations to the U.S. Navy far earlier than February 16, 1978, when Kerry was formally discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve (according to the U.S. Navy). When speaking of Kerry's desire to join the anti-war movement, Brinkley says:

But in Kerry's case "joining" was not that simple. He was still enlisted, wearing a naval uniform, and working in Brooklyn at the behest of Admiral Schlech. He had, however, a plan. Quietly, with the help of Julia, he had evaluated the possibility of running for Congress from Massachusetts.
--p338.

He decided to petition Admiral Schlech, to tell his boss that his conscience dictated that he protest the war, that he wanted out of the Navy immediately so he could run for Congress. Admiral Schlech consented to his request and on January 3, 1970, the U.S. officially issued an honorable discharge. "It was suprisingly easy," Kerry recalled. "I went and saw the admiral and told him my conscience was bothering me, that I had to speak out against the war. He was a great man. He simply said 'I understand.'
--pp338-339.

I am uncertain of the legal implications of Kerry's participation in the anti-war movement, especially as an on-camera spokesman and leader of VVFW, while a commissioned officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve. I leave that determination to the military lawyers. But I believe that active duty officers are expected to refrain from attacking their Commander in Chief. As a civilian, I assume that applies also to reserve officers. I could be wrong. But that I make that assumption shows that there is an issue of appearances. It is likely that others make the same assumption. Brinkley lists Kerry as joining VVAW shortly after his marriage in May of 1970, several months after his "honorable discharge." The April 29, 1970 date on the campaign timeline also conveniently precedes that.

The problem is greater when considering Kerry's later actions in meeting privately with the North Vietnamese on several occasions in Paris.

According to the FBI files, Kerry met with representatives from the North Vietnamese government in Paris in 1971 in an effort to secure the release of captured American prisoners of war. Kerry has previously acknowledged meeting "both delegations" of Vietnamese communists in Paris in 1970, but has said nothing of the 1971 meeting.
--FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 04, 2004

These meetings, even more than the VVAW activities in this country, are what I suspect drive the variance from fact of the Kerry campaign timeline. There is no mention of these meetings in Brinkley's timeline.

If any of these Paris trips exceeded 30 days, it's possible that Kerry violated orders in his separation letter. Item 7 on the letter "Release From Active Duty" stipulates the following:

In the event that you plan travel or residence in foreign countries for a period in excess of 30 days, notice of intent will be submitted to the command having custody of your service record. Such notice should include destination, expected duration of travel or residency, and forwarding address.

I found no sign of such notice in the files on the Kerry site, but we know that does not include all his records. I also do not know the exact dates of Kerry's Paris trips.

If this is indeed an attempt to sweep Kerry's very questionable post-war activities out of sight, they are farcical in their competence. They remind me of, well, certain memos being touted still by CBS News as authentic.

Posted by dan at September 14, 2004 02:24 PM | TrackBack