Enter Mike Weatherford
Last night we posted a long message that Alan Schlingenbaum had sent to the Minneapolis Star Tribune taking issue with our "Apocalypse Kerry" column. I think Alan's lengthy message is a quibble with a column one of whose points is that John Kerry did not undertake a mission into Cambodia as he himself claimed on the floor of the United States Senate in March 1986 -- and whose point has been conceded by the Kerry campaign itself.
Alan quarrels with our assertion that Swift boats did not undertake covert missions into Cambodia. In the column, I should have said "to our knowledge." Alan cited a 1969 Navy press release that suggests Swift boats might in fact have undertaken missions into Cambodia. I asked Alan to let us know if he found any evidence suggesting that Kerry did in fact undertake such a mission, and poked fun at his silence in response.
Not understanding that we're operating on Internet time here, Alan wrote just after midnight this morning and chided me for not giving him longer to respond. His response (in part):
I read a Navy press release that left me with the strong impression that Swift boats committed "incursions" into Cambodia. By all accounts, Kerry was on a Swift boat. He says he was in Cambodia. These observations amount to sufficient evidence to suit me.In response I wrote to Alan that he seems to have missed the gist of our column, the contrast between the treatment of the mainstream media of President Bush's National Guard service and its nontreatment of Kerry's Kurtz chronicles. Alan states that he distrusts the mainstream media and disagrees with the gist of our column. Alan also had a more substantive response to the reader's critique of Alan's message that we posted this morning:Now there's something I'd like you to do in return.
Will you let us know if you come across anyone who actually witnessed Bush performing duty in the Air National Guard, in either Texas, Alabama or anywhere, at anytime after May 1972? He claims he was there, and apparently he received some pay for this period. How come we haven't heard from anyone who remembers serving with him?
I've done my best to help you with the mystery that preoccupies you. Now you can do the same for me. Deal?
Thank you for reading my post.Given the fact that Kerry himself has disavowed the Christmas in Cambodia story, Alan's persistence in proving it was theoretically possible for Kerry to have conducted the mission(s) to Cambodia -- with or without the CIA man and the magic hat, or to drop off Navy SEALS, or to equip the anticommunist forces in Cambodia, he doesn't say -- is passing strange."I think his error is made by assuming that the press release refers solely to the Mekong River" -- I don't think I made an error, and I fully understand that the press release does not refer solely to the Mekong River, and I never asserted otherwise. I think you misinterpreted me. I should have been more clear. I'll try to do better.
I made two simple points: 1) waterways run along the border, not just across it (including waterways north of Chau Doc that are clearly part of the Mekong River system), and 2) Swift boats patrolled waterways that run along the border (exactly where, along the border, is a matter of interpretation, in my opinion).
I referred to a map to provide support for my first point. I think the map is sufficient to prove this point (in other words, this point stands without regard to any consideration of the press release). This is notwithstanding your remark: "he estimates parts of the Mekong river that could be visually interpreted as flowing 'along the border.'" I don't think "estimates" or visual interpretation are required. I think what the map shows is obvious (even to a non-cartographer), and I described this in detail.
My remark about smug journalists is completely with regard to my first point. I was objecting to, and I still object to, the flat assertion that "the Mekong doesn't run along the Cambodian border" (as a WSJ writer recently put it). I think only someone who hasn't bothered to look at a detailed map would make such a statement. I think this statement is so oversimplified as to be dangerously misleading. I was dismayed to notice (as I explain below) that you made such a statement yourself.
I offered the press release primarily in support of my second point ("Swift boats patrolled waterways that run along the border"). I'm well aware that the press release emphasizes Swift boat operations west of Chau Doc, in the area of Ha Tien. I'm also well aware that the press release doesn't explicitly state that Swift boats patrolled the Mekong area north of Chau Doc (I probably should have been more careful and expressed this distinction, but my message was long enough as it is; in any case, I apologize to anyone who became confused because I wasn't clear enough). You are correct to point this out. In my opinion, however, the press release also doesn't rule this out (i.e., the presence of Swift boats north of Chau Doc). I think it's a matter of interpretation. Also, events in war tend to defy neat, absolute categorization ("we'll always keep all the red boats over on one side, and we'll put all the green boats over on the other side").
The press release is relevant to the broader discussion, since the argument has been made that Swift boats were simply not used in the area where the Mekong river crosses the border from Vietnam to Cambodia. "Unfit for Command" makes a fairly sweeping statement along those lines (Chapter 3): "Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift BoatsŠthere were no Swifts anywhere in the area." Similar assertions have been made on this blog and other blogs.
But information is now appearing to indicate these assertions are false. An example of such information is the US Navy press release I mentioned earlier. Another example is the narrative to be found here. In my opinion, both of those resources refer to Swift boat operations well within the 55-mile zone where O'Neill claimed "there were no Swifts anywhere in the area."
Incidentally, if you look here, you'll find that Swift boats traveling up the Mekong River were part of Nixon's major incursion into Cambodia in May 1970. I think it's reasonable to believe that these boats were not suddenly introduced, but rather had engaged in at least some previous exercises in this area (both south and north of the border).
Incidentally, the press release explicitly says that Swift boats (prior to May 1970) conducted "incursions" (although exactly where is not clear), even though the keeper of this blog recently said in a newspaper that there is no evidence that such a thing ever happened.
I think some of the discussion on this topic is designed to create the impression that 1) there are no waterways anywhere along the border (i.e., that waterways only cross the border) and 2) there were no Swift boats anywhere in the vicinity. I think those two assertions are demonstrably false.
Also, please allow me to point out the following apparent contradiction in your statement. You said: "1. Not all waterways along the Cambodian Border are part of the Mekong River." That's true, and a useful thing to know, and I never asserted otherwise. By making this statement, you seem to be acknowledging what is also true, that indeed some of the waterways along the border are part of the Mekong River. As I've said, all it takes to know this is to take a look at a decent map.
But then you immediately say: "2. The Cai Lon River (I think that is the name) does in fact flow 'along the border' with Cambodia, but not the Mekong." You now appear to be denying what I thought you had just (a sentence ago) acknowledged, that portions of the Mekong do indeed run "along the border."
At the risk of beating this subject to death, I would like to share one more message from a reader -- one of the kind of remarkable readers we are proud to claim. Reader Mike Weatherford wrote this afternoon:
Let me first begin by saying something about me, so you can judge what I say for yourself. I'm a Vietnam veteran. I served with the 12th Reconnaissance Intelligence Technical Squadron, Tan Son Nhut AB, RVN, from 9 Oct 70 through 8 Oct 71, providing imagery intelligence to Hq 7th Air Force and MACV. I got an Air Force Commendation Medal for my service. I was an Air Force Staff Sergeant, working for the Briefing Support team, and spent all my year there working nights, going over almost every foot of imagery taken in Southeast Asia for materials highlighting what was happening on a daily basis in Southeast Asia. Most of what we developed briefing/targeting/information slides on were the result of other people finding and reporting things, but frequently we made discoveries on our own. I was the Night Shift NCOIC, and supervised four to six people.Mike invites readers to visit his Weatherford site and to read his books.I can still shut my eyes today and visualize the entire trail network used by the NVA in Laos known as the "Ho Chi Minh" trail, as it existed during my tour - from the northern passes of Mu Gia and Ban Nape down through the abandoned town of Tchepone, past the karst outcroppings where the highway divided (routh 92 & 96), to the town of Attopeu, and on into South Vietnam. I can still visualize the battlefields of Khe Sahn and the A Shau valley, and dozens of other places where Americans fought and died. I'm less familiar with the Mekong river system, because that wasn't a major imagery reconnaissance concern during my tour. That doesn't mean I don't remember seeing imagery of it, and of studying the maps and information of the area. I also know I'm not alone - there are hundreds of Americans with the same, or similar, memories.
The Mekong is a huge river as it crosses Vietnam - similar to the Mississippi or the Nile. In many places, it's a mile wide and a hundred feet deep or more. Two or three of its major tributaries at the mouth are of equal size. There are a dozen others, however, that swell and shrink, depending on the time of year. The volume of flow depends entirely on the season - not winter/summer, but whether it's the rainy or dry season. The rainy season, IIRC, begins in January, and lasts until April or early May. The river begins expanding in early March and continues in flood until late June. It's at it lowest just before the rainy season, in December and January. It takes about a month for the rainfall occurring in China, Laos, and the north to make it to the Mekong delta.
Some comments about the 1:250,000 map: at that scale, an inch =3.94 miles. Do the math:
1:250,000 means 1"=250,000 inches.
250,000 inches = 20,833 feet (250,000/12)
20,833 feet = 3.9457 miles (20,833/5280)Some other things to consider: A Swift boat was about 35 feet long, eight or ten feet wide, and drew about four feet of water. Many of the canals depicted on the 1:250,000 map you see are less than 20 feet wide, and up to five feet deep. You're not going to run a Swift boat on those canals - period. They're there strictly to get rice to market, and to get people in and out of rice paddies. Many of the rivers depicted are depicted as they are at their full (flood) width,
not as they are at various times of the year. The Tonle Sap, depicted as being about 70 feet wide, may be that, at the height of the rainy season. It may also be twelve feet wide and 3 feet deep during the dry season. Again, it may not reach full flood until late May. I can't say for sure, I don't remember. Just don't judge anything by what you see on one of those maps. (BTW, the Army has some nice 1:15,000 scale maps of the area, if you can pry them out of their hands).See if you can get one of the Swift Boat Vets to give you some information on their Operations Orders, RE the minimum safe width of waterways they worked, minimum depths, etc. Also ask about changing depths due to rainy/dry season discharge, etc. If you really want to go into that depth of investigation, you can go at this as working on a complex corporate fraud case, and begin building up a complete background file on the operating environment the Swift Boats operated within, which would, in many cases, completely nullify much of what John Kerry is feeding the press - and what a lot of those attacking you are tossing at you from both the left and the right.
Regards,
Mike Weatherford
MSgt, USAF, Retired
Colorado Springs, CO
