QandO
Questions and Observations| « News From Iowa | Main | Kerry's Vietnam Syndrome and National Defense » |
|
July 30, 2004 Kerry's Record - Navy John Kerry has made much of his Vietnam service, even to the point that it has become a bit of a joke. But its clear he has decided to make it a centerpiece of his qualification claim to be Commander-in-chief. He has asked us to judge him on his record. He feels his Navy record as found in his FITREPs prove his leadership ability and his fitness for command. Well, after reading them I'd have to disagree. I’ve received and written a multitude of OER and EERs in my 28 years service (Officer Efficiency Reports and Enlisted Efficiency Reports). That’s what we called them in the Army. The Navy does the same thing but calls the reports FITREPs or Fitness Reports. Since John Kerry has asked us to judge him on his record I took him up on it today looked up his FITREPs. Now, as I’ve mentioned, I’ve written and received these for 28 years. I’ve served on promotion boards where they’re reviewed in detail I know what a good one looks like, I know what an average one looks like and I know what a bad one looks like. So after reading his FITREPS (and by the way he has not released all of them) I’d have to say, in light of the Kerry camp's claims, they were a bit of a surprise. In my estimation they were at best average, and in a few, he had a some ratings which could be considered adverse. After reading them, I wondered how to approach this subject, how to convey the way reports like this really were read and interpreted by the military in an understandable way without seeming to be slanting my explanation to the negative in order to discredit Kerry. In other words, how to fairly explain what were these reports really saying knowing the explanation wouldn't be well received by Kerry fans. As an example, if you read the narrative in Kerry’s reports, they seem pretty good at first glance. But there are some points you have to consider when reading a narrative: Narratives aren’t that important in relation to the rest of the report and, in Kerry’s case, there is as much negative in those narratives as positive. How does one relate that without seeming to be biased against Kerry? Again, I was at a stand still as to how to convey those points in an understandable and unbiased way. Its not something which is easily explained to those not familiar with the inner workings of military rating systems. Additionally, it was a Navy Fitness report, so I wasn’t as familiar with the way some of the rankings worked as I would have been with an Army report. Same with some of the Navy specific terminology. But I am familiar enough with efficiency reports in general to understand these FITREPs weren’t at all as good as the Kerry people would like you to believe. In an effort to put this explanation together, I began a little Googling around the net today looking for FITREP explanations. It was during that exercise that I ran across “The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” website. Its an interesting and compelling site. Before you go off the deep-end with “its an anti-Kerry site”, I’d make the point that while they certainly don’t feel Kerry is qualified to be commander-in-chief, they’re not wild-eyed tin-foil hatted righties who’s grist and ballast is conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims. Their’s is a very well presented argument (made by former US Naval officers) against Kerry’s claims about and his version of his Vietnam and Navy record. As they say: We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America's highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward. As to the subject of Kerry’s FITREPs, one of the most useful pages on their site is an explanation of how FITREPs are graded and read in the Navy. I read it very closely and found it to be an excellent capsule of how the system works. Other than terminology which pertains to the Navy, the system is almost identical to that of the Army. They provide an excellent context and explanation by which to better understand the reports that have been released by Kerry. John Kerry's campaign representatives quote a few words from one of his best Navy fitness reports to support their misleading claim that Kerry's military evaluations were those of a top-flight officer. They carefully ignore the existence of several other reports that range from mediocre to substandard, thereby presenting an inaccurate picture of Kerry's service record. This is an important point. There are no gaps in an officer’s record. His or her time is completely accounted for at all times and, as is apparent in Kerry’s record, even when they haven’t been in a command long enough to receive a full rating, their days are accounted for with a “not observed” FITREP. There will always be a FITREP to cover their service. Moving on down the page you'll find a discussion of Kerry’s FITREPS. Before that, however, the Swift Boat Vets give you an excellent introduction to Navy FITREPs, how they’re written and read, and what they mean. This section is critical to understanding why Kerry’s FITREPs aren’t what he and his staff crack them up to be. For instance: Second, what matters most are marks or grades above and especially below the norm. Marks below the norm may fall under a very positive word (e.g., “excellent”) and appear positive to the casual reader, but no matter: any mark to the right of the norm is a strong, clear sign to both promotion boards and assignment officers (e.g., “detailers”) that there is a performance shortfall. A mark to the right is a “ding.” You don’t want a ding in your FITREP. The last section then applies those things crucial to understanding FITREPs to Kerry’s released FITREPs. In his FITREP for his combat tour as Officer in Charge of a SWIFT Boat -– arguably the most important FITREP among those released by the Kerry campaign –- Kerry is not dinged but slammed in command, seamanship and ship handling and in all major leadership traits (28 JAN 69 ELLIOTT). To Kerry and perhaps to other junior officers, it is an okay FITREP. To detailers and selection boards, it is a negative fitness report that borders on the adverse. LCDR Elliott ranks him well below the norm in traits essential for command: force, industry, analytical ability, judgment and more. The case is convincingly made that Kerry’s FITREPS don’t measure up to those of a great, or even good, leader. In fact, there are some marks which really question his leadership ability. That is further documented with a statement of another swift commander who had been Kerry’s OIC on a few occassions . One has to wonder what the missing FITREPs reveal, but regardless, its my opinion that those he has released don’t measure up to his claims of good leadership ability. They show an officer who was rated poorly in judgment, personal behavior, command, seamanship and ship handling and leadership traits. Interestingly, as pointed out on the site, other commanders don’t see the FITREPs previous commanders have written. However the “dings” noted show up consistently from command to command. Its not a particularly flattering or ringing endorsement of Kerry’s leadership ability. In fact his FITREPs don’t endorse his leadership ability at all. It would be interesting to see the rest of his FITREPS. I believe, as the Swift Boat Vets do, that the next time Kerry et. al. scream for the release of all of Bush’s records, the same request should be made of Kerry. After all, we’ve been asked to judge him on his record and it would be nice to have his entire record by which to do that. |
Damn good work Dale. I'm forwarding this to everybody I know. I'll link to it as well momentarily.
Posted by: Elliot Fladen at July 30, 2004 09:15 PM
My bad . . . sorry McQ, i see you were the one who posted it.
Posted by: Elliot Fladen at July 30, 2004 09:22 PM
IMHO, this is probably the single most important thing I've read about Kerry. Perhaps being a good leader as as a military officer is not necessarily a requirement to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces; but for someone who's basing his campaign upon the qualities he demonstrated as an officer, the standard is certainly applicable.
You gotta get the word out on this.
Posted by: Roofer at July 30, 2004 09:45 PM
For a page by page anaylsys of Kerry's fitreps go to www.sportsmenforkerryedwards.com/fitrep_analysis.htm
It also becomes clear where there are gaps in his record.
Posted by: Jeff at July 31, 2004 09:15 AM
Jeff: yes, I've seen that. While useful, I don't think it does as good a job as the Swift Boat vets analysis. While good, in my estimation it doesn't provide the context necessary to really understand the point being made, that Kerry, at best, was a "middle of the pack" officer (average) and an argument could be made that in leadership ability, he was below average (which is what brought him down to being an average officer).
Posted by: McQ at July 31, 2004 09:52 AM
No question. Theirs is a more complete analysis. I want to provide the detail behind the analysis, which they don't make available. The most complete information is a melding of both pages so you can see their overview and the detail behind it. That way people can come to their own conclusions.
Posted by: Jeff at July 31, 2004 10:09 AM
Is there a general trend among people who evaluate officers and write FITREPS and their army equivalents...to approach that task with a prevailing resentment of officers who question or chafe against bad orders or ineffective policies?
From what I've read and documentaries I've seen of Viet Nam, as well as people I've run into, the whole thing was a quagmire or giant clusterfuck. A situation in which performing to the standards of your superiors doesn't really matter, because your superiors are gits. But Kerry was there. He believed the government rhetoric and volunteered. His father didn't pull strings to get him a cushy assignment ahead of people in line for them. His fortune isn't derived from forming a company which failed in every respect except generating revenue from Nepotism, wheeling and dealing that into co-owning a baseball team which played a stadium payed for by tax-payers, and basing his candidacy on his achievements as governor of Texas -- Achievements now proven blatantly fraudulent.
Even a mediocre swift boat captain....has better credentials than George W. Bush.
Posted by: Ryan at July 31, 2004 04:00 PM
Ryan: to answer your question succinctly: no. Evaluators are concerned with neither politics nor personalities. They're interested in performance to standard and consistency. John Kerry did not, in many cases, perform to standard, and while he showed a consistency, it was a negative consistency. If you look at his FITREPS, his commanders dinged him on the same problems, FITREP after FITREP.
You have to understand that the system is an evaluation system for leadership abilty. It doesn't care about the politics. It doesn't really care about the job one is in. What it does care about is how well you do your job you're assigned and how well you exhibited the traits of a leader.
Kerry was average, at best, in both areas.
Unlike Bush, Kerry has only his FITREPS to submit as proof of his leadership ability. As stated, his "proof" fall far short of what I would find acceptable, based on my experience with these type of reports.
With Bush you have the last 3 1/2 years with which to judge him. Regardless of the side you fall upon, its real "proof" of his ability or inability to lead. With a dearth of leadership from Kerry when it comes to the Senate, you're left with his FITREPS, and they aren't anything to brag about.
Posted by: McQ at July 31, 2004 04:16 PM
You will also find that Kerry attempted to use political influence in his evaluations. Unfortunately the letters referenced in the fitreps are not included in the released information. GOK what is said in the fitreps he did not release.
Posted by: Jeff at July 31, 2004 04:38 PM
Kerry seems to have more than his FITREPs. He seems to have the support of the crew members who served under him and other people he was in the war zone with. And he seems to have had it long before he began campaigning for President.
Posted by: ryan at August 1, 2004 07:42 AM
Well Ryan, all I have to say is if you believe that, then you didn't bother to read any of the cites I left in this post, because if you had you'd know that the majority of his peers, who were boat commanders at the same time he was, definitely do not share that opinion of him. Those were the people who served with him. In fact one who was his OIC on various missions makes it very clear he told his commander he didn't want Kerry on future missions.
So believe what you will, but there's plenty of evidence out there that you claim isn't true. All you have to do is click and read.
Posted by: McQ at August 1, 2004 08:07 AM
Great article.
A couple of thoughts:
I assume that you bring this up because Kerry is making such a big fuss about it, which makes sense. However I would think you have to give prop's to him for going and trying to be brave.
It is also nice that he stayed politically active his whole life. Bush really came into it later in life and without as much interest, I think.
Kerry shouldn't use this argument so much as neither Bush's military record nor Kerry's can give much indication of what kind of leader they are. It is way too long ago. I think it is irrelevant.
Also, I think there is waaayyyy too much focus on the short term. I think that people should just try and take a step back and really spend time comparing the candidates, really comparing them where possible and showing strengths and weaknesses of both parties.
It seems like most of the Kerry sites are just mouth pieces of the Kerry rhetoric machine and the same for Bush sites. I see very little thought provoking analysis and lots of passing on the crap the media feeds us.
Keep digging.
Posted by: Heath Weaver at August 3, 2004 06:27 AM
Guys,
I will tell you what. To heck with this nonsense about Kerry's Vietnam war record. At least the bastard had the balls to volunteer for service, and didn't whine to his daddy to help keep him out of the the war like Cheney and Bush.
Look, I doubt very seriously if John Kerry will ever amount to be the same kind of great leader that Bill Clinton was as president. However, I know for a fact that he can't possibly be any worse that GW Bush. I am far from liberal in my political philosophy, unless you consider wanting to turn the entire Middle East into one big glass parking lot a liberal idea..then you can call me a flaming lib. We ALL need to come together and send a message to Washington, that unless they start representing OUR interests...the people of America, we will keep voting their sorry asses out of office. This is why I am voting for Kerry in November. If Kerry drops the ball, guess what?...I will vote for the Republican challenger in '08. Won't you please all join me and boot Bush out of office, for the sake of our children if nothing else?
Posted by: OutbackJack at August 13, 2004 05:19 PM
The thing that most people don't understand when reading these FITREPs is how over-inflated they were. Due to the Congressionally mandated up-or-out nature of Navy careers, there is tremendous competition for promotion. If you don't make the cut, you are forced out -- in many cases just shy of retirement. Its cruel, but the Navy has no say in the matter. So because of that, a Commanding Officer will try and make his best officers seem to walk on water. The actual middle of the road officers are graded just below that and the also-rans just below those. No one was actually listed as a poor performer unless really, really, bad. This system was not something consciously arrived at, but merely the result of the system in place. Thus, reading the narratives, the average person would think that Kerry's CO thought highly of him. There are, however, some interesting clues as to an officers "real" standing. One of the techniques was to "damn with faint praise." For example: "He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgement." is a red flag to a member of a selection board. Now I will go personal. I was an enlisted Radioman aboard Gridley during most of the time that Kerry was also aboard. Now, a Radioman didn't have continuous contact with most junior officers but did see them on a regular basis. To tell the truth, I don't remember anything about him -- good or bad. Now, this is pure conjecture. I spent 23 years in the Navy as an enlisted man and an officer. I've spent years aboard ship. An officer is always assigned "collateral duties" that are part-time and in addition to the regularly assigned duty such as Division Officer. Public Affairs Officer (PAO)is one of these collateral duties. Every junior officer is loaded down with as many collaterals as they can manage. I usually had 3 or 4 at a time. PAO is perhaps the least demanding collateral of all and significantly, this is the only collateral duty that Kerry held and he had it for the entire period he was aboard Gridley. It has been my experience that PAO is traditionally given to the junior officer that is least likely to be in the skippers good graces. I remember that on one ship, we had an Ensign that was so worthless that PAO was his sole function. The narrative section of each of the three FITREPs from the Gridley spends a great deal of time talking about his PAO duties and how intelligent and articulate he is. There are absolutely no remarks about his underway watch standing abilities. There is one remark about how well he has brought the ships appearance and hull maintenance to a high level in a short time. This is reference to his duties as the First Lieutenant. Interestingly, he appears to have been shifted to that job about the time the ship departed unexpectedly for the western Pacific and the ship was underway almost continuously during the remaining time of the report. Well I can attest to the fact that the ship's appearance was immaculate up to that point and there is very little improvement that would have been accomplished while the ship was racing to Asia because of the capture of the USS Pueblo by the North Koreans. Everyone would have been drilling, trying to get up to speed on this unexpected and emergency deployment. BTW, I transferred off the ship about 5 minutes before it got underway. I was enroute to Vietnam.
Posted by: Bill at August 13, 2004 11:06 PM
From Kerry's Fitness Report of 28 Jan 1969 (page 24 of this PDF):
LTJG Kerry was assigned to this division for only a short time but during that time exhibited all the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgement in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta. Involved in several enemy initiated fire fights, including an ambush during the Christmas truce, he effectively suppressed enemy fire and is unofficially credited with 20 enemy killed in action. Though relatively new to the PCF he is thoroughly knowledgeable of all aspects of his boat and PCF operations. He was instrumental in planning of highly successful Sea Lords Operations. He was cited for his performance during action against the enemy by Commander Task Force in his message 080807Z Jan 69.Note that "performance during action" doesn't sound like his only participation was "planning".
Now to add that "Sea Lords Operations" involved incursions into Cambodia.
As to whether it's implausible that a SWIFT boat might go into Cambodia and drop someone off there, note: "The fellow on the right was a freelance journalist and photographer that had caught a ride into Cambodia on a US Swift Boat. He asked to be dropped off on the shore to proceed on his own. It is hoped that he found what he was looking for and survived to tell about it."
Sure doesn't sound like that was a "physical impossibility", as Steve Gardner claimed.
In fact, the Navy said Swift boats were involved in those Cambodian incursions:
An acronym for "Southeast Asia Lake, Ocean, River, Delta Strategy", SEALORDS started on October 18, 1968 when a Navy Swift boat (PCF) reconnoitered the entrance to the Cua Lon River on the Gulf of Thailand side of the Ca Mau Penisula. Following this mission, Swift boat crewmen conducted a series of incursions along the southern rivers and canals upsetting base camps and cutting Viet Cong supply and communication lines.So Gardner simply lied about it being a "physical impossibility" for a Swift boat to enter Cambodian waters.
Yet it was on the basis of Gardner's (now disproved) claim that Kerry was called a liar.
Since the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam said Swift boats were going into Cambodia starting in October 1968, and Kerry's Fitness Report says he was "instrumental" in that operation, it seems Kerry's story does have some official corroboration. But his accusers are now proved liars.
Kerry was based at Sa Dec. This was a base for Navy river boats patrolling the Cambodian border and conducting incursions — in fact, it was later made the headquarters of Swift Boat Coastal Division 13 because of its advantageous position.
That is, it wasn't the Swift boats' "northernmost patrol area", but the place they went from to do patrols and incursions, and returned to afterwards.
The Fitness Report refers to "an ambush during the Christmas truce", which indicates that the attack happened in the field, on a mission or patrol, not "an attack on the base". So this had to have been at least toward Cambodia from Sa Dec, since missions & patrols from Sa Dec went either along or across the Cambodian border. In fact, Kerry's contemporaneous journal entry of that Christmas firefight refers to going back toward Sa Dec after the incident. If Sa Dec had been his "northernmost patrol area" and not his base, he'd have been going away from Sa Dec at the end of his patrol.
Posted by: Raven at August 15, 2004 01:15 AM
It's easy to slam a man's service record, WHEN HE ACTUALLY HAS ONE!!
I don't see any of you slamming Bush's service record....because...oops! He DOESN'T HAVE ONE TO SLAM!
Give it a break! Ok, so Kerry "wasn't" a great commander (that isn't saying what type of commander he would be now!)...he is still way above that dope of a President we have now, who says he has been in the service...yeah, flying his little planes to deliver plants to Florida!
Give it up...Kerry still gets my vote, given the kind of *&^t Bush has gotten us into the last four years!
Jan.
Posted by: Jan at August 20, 2004 04:05 PM
News from the Web:
Swift Boat Writer [John O'Neill] Lied on Cambodia Claim (AP)
Who is Steve Gardner? Swift Boat Vet "eyewitness" was not present for events leading to Kerry's medals or Purple Hearts ... "Yet in repeated media appearances, conservative hosts have presented Gardner as an eyewitness to key Kerry events. And in at least two interviews, Gardner has falsely claimed that he was present for the incidents leading to Kerry's receipt of awards." ...
Kerry and the swift boat snipers "So far, Kerry's critics appear far more inconsistent in their stories than Kerry. Not only do their accounts contradict military records, they often contradict the critics' own previous statements. As more witnesses come forward, Kerry's version of the handful of events in question gets more backing."
Swiftboat Crewman: Kerry Boat Took Fire (AP)
Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert joins in supporting Kerry's version of events
Ads anger Colorado vet: Telluride man says he saw Kerry rescue soldier from river (Rocky Mountain News) "Retired Navy lieutenant Jim Russell, 60, backed up Kerry's version of an incident more than 35 years ago."
Kerry-Loathing Swift Boaters Sinking Facts (NY Observer)
Assault on Kerry Dishonors G.O.P. (NY Observer)
These Charges Are False ... It's one thing for the presidential campaign to get nasty but quite another for it to engage in fabrication. (LA Times) "No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago. Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence except their own dubious word. ... These charges against John Kerry are false."
And finally,
Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam (NY Times)
Posted by: Raven at August 27, 2004 11:06 AM
in response to some claims earlier hinting that John Kerry is 'braver' than GW b/c he 'volunteered' to go to Vietnam.
that's not true.
after his education deferrment request to study in Paris was denied, John Kerry enlisted in the Naval Reserves. the Naval Reserves were the Navy equivalent of the Air National Guard.
John Kerry happened to be sent to Vietnam, and GW happened to not get sent.
Posted by: merc at August 28, 2004 07:58 PM
Bush 222 days AWOL minus 3 weeks vacation time still equals 201 days AWOL . 200 days is considered Desertion or am I wrong? Honorably Discharged (Embarisment is more like it) Could someone please explain this one to me.
Posted by: Mike at August 31, 2004 10:19 PM
Gosh, merc, even the Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry admit, "After training, Kerry volunteered for Vietnam."
And even then, he could have stayed on a ship, offshore, out of range from small-arms fire.
Instead, he requested reassignment to Swift Boats (second choice PBR's).
Yeah, he "happened to be sent to Vietnam," because he volunteered.
Bush, as you may recall, didn't. (See his check mark in the "do not volunteer" box, on page 22 of this PDF.)
Posted by: Raven at September 4, 2004 11:33 AM
Navy: Kerry medals approved properly (AP/CNN)
Navy Says Kerry's Service Awards OK'd (AP/Yahoo!)
Posted by: Raven at September 19, 2004 01:30 AM