Posted on 01/16/2008 11:34:59 AM PST by Fedora
It isn't undocumented. There is no serious doubt that such a report was created, and that it was accurately summarized by Dr. Lewy. I have no idea why you keep insisting that since the report is no longer available, Lewy's original summary and citation are therefore somehow suspect.
The NCIS report under question hasn’t been found. No NCIS record of the report has surfaced. No NCIS record of an investigation into WSI has surfaced. No NCIS individuals have stepped forward to say they investigated WSI.
No institutional memory of the NCIS looking into the WSI, as requested by Hatfield, or deciding not to look into it. A spokesman for the NCIS, Paul O’Donnell, has said that they don’t know whether the report ever existed, or might have been destroyed.
No other historian, or anyone at all other than Lewy, has said that they know anything at all about whether the NCIS investigated or decided not to investigate WSI.
And this is a mystery. Both “sides” had a lot to gain or lose from Hatfield’s requested investigation.
Nixon was convinced that the WSI was fraudulent and could be so proved, while the true WSI believers would fear an NCIS cover-up, yet hope for vindication as with the My Lai investigation. Wouldn’t the White House be closely monitoring and encouraging the query? Ditto Hatfield, the Fulbright committee, and the liberal press.
So how did the investigation and its report just disappear?
Was it aborted at conception? Did it take place just as Lewy says, but inside forces loyal to VVAW got to the records and destroyed them, as per our speculation?
It casts no doubt on Lewy’s honesty to doubt the existence of the report. For example, he might have been mislead by a bureaucrat at NCIS who gave him a false summary just to cover up the fact that NCIS dropped the ball and didn’t do the investigation they were supposed to do.
I can think of other possible reasons for why the NCIS report isn’t available, just speculation, and none of those what-ifs would cast suspicion on Lewy’s honesty.
Even the best historians make mistakes. Perhaps Lewy made one, perhaps not. But the fact remains that Lewy's citing "Office of the Director, Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters USMC, Winter Soldier Investigation files" doesn't yield any trace of the goods, when going to that cited source.
I understand your point, but I think rather than calling it undocumented, I'd characterize it as "documented by Lewy." If he did see or receive a briefing on a report, and recorded that experience when writing his book, that would be a case similar to oral history, though not precisely oral history since he wrote it down--it'd be somewhere between oral history and a secondary source. Oral history and secondary sources are also a type of documentation. Now the strength of such documentation can be challenged by the types of questions and inconsistencies you raise in your other post, and certainly there is something there that needs to be explained one way or another. I can only speculate as to the explanation at this point, and rather than speculate I'd prefer to leave it at encouraging a further investigation of the matter. It's fertile ground that can be ploughed if more information can be tracked down.
If the documents themselves can't be located, the next logical line of inquiry would be to locate the original investigative personnel. I'm also curious if other government bodies ran investigations of this--Air Force, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. Why I mention those in particular: The VVAW and its allies in the antiwar movement were focusing on trying to halt Air Force bombings in Vietnam and Cambodia with claims about atrocities and civilian casualities, so the Air Force would be another military agency with a possible interest in the VVAW. The FBI's investigation of the VVAW at this time is known and the documents have generally been released, though a close investigation of the portion of the released VVAW files pertaining to the Dewey Canyon III period and Kerry's testimony at that time was *not* released with the other files in 2004 (or at least it did not make it into the electronic batches that were distributed online); this may be where more information lies, as it's likely the FBI would've checked with its military counterpart, which was standard operating procedure in this type of situation, and what the military communicated back to the Bureau should be recorded there. The VVAW was also helping some of Philip Agee and Victor Marchetti's associates attack the CIA and NSA in Congressional hearings about this time, there is reference to CIA surveillance of VVAW activity abroad in the FBI's files, and we also know James McCord was tasked to investigate VVAW in relation to the Republican National Convention and what became Watergate, so those are some reasons to think CIA and NSA files might have information. Obviously this would take some research, but I toss that line of thought out FWIW.
Office of the Director, Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters USMC, Winter Soldier Investigation files.
If Lewy was referencing an oral briefing, he would have indicated so as part of the citation, per standard citation procedure. I have to conclude that either the document existed and has since been misplaced/moved, or Lewy is a forger--I don't see any room for poor memory as a viable explanation here. And I don't see any reason to suspect Lewy is a forger, so I am inclined to seek an explanation elsewhere.
With “unqualified”, I mean not mentioning the fact that no primary document has surfaced, nor an institutional record of said primary document, nor any record of individuals tasked with or in any way involved with an NCIS investigation or report, nor any other person who says they have seen or heard of such a report.
Many have wrongly assumed reproducibility of primary documents backing up Lewy’s NCIS account, and this could and has lead to unfavorable “gotcha” moments.
As to my original “undocumented”, I meant “un-primary-documented”. I assumed that was the conventional meaning for historians.
As to your other points - right on!
BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH.
I second that!
Lewy may have been briefed by someone who told him of the NCIS report residing in “Office of the Director, Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters USMC, Winter Soldier Investigation files”.
Lewy could have taken notes as to what to expect when he read the actual report himself, and then forgot that that he didn’t read it himself. As he says now, he can’t recall.
No dishonesty if it happened that way, just a mistake.
Lewy’s account of the NCIS report has the feel of a brief summary: e.g., no names of individual WSI witnesses.
On your other point:
Lewy may have been briefed by someone who told him of the NCIS report residing in “Office of the Director, Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters USMC, Winter Soldier Investigation files”.
If that were the case, it would have been indicated by a prefatory comment such as "Conversation with. . ." or "Communication with. . ." or something like that. The way he cites it is a citation format for a government document. There is nothing to indicate otherwise in his book, it's only the much later interview that was spun to suggest the possibility of an oral briefing, but what he recorded in his book when he wrote it is very clearly referencing a document. A historian used to working with government documents looking at this note would assume a document was intended--I have seen a very similar format used for citing FBI files, for instance. That a document is indicated by this wording is also implied by the general comments in Lewy's preface and at the beginning of his footnotes where he discusses his sources. His preface says, "Scholars interested in the archival location of particular documents should consult the Note on Military Records at the back of the book", and the comments there pertain to the format used in the footnote we're discussing.
The Note on the Military Records also has another item I noticed which may be relevant to our discussion:
Records of general courts-martial and of special courts-martial resulting in a bad conduct discharge involving U.S. military tried and convicted in Vietnam are held at the Washington National Records Center. Access to Army cases is arranged through the U.S. Army Judiciary, Falls Church, Virginia. Access to Marine Corps cases is through the Military Law Branch, USMC Office of the Judge Advocate General. .. Investigative files on war crimes are held at the respective Offices of the Judge Advocates General, but probably are no longer accessible due to Privacy Act constraints.
Lewy's preface indicates he began writing his book around 1972, and his access to documents was facilitated by an Executive Order issued on March 8, 1972, which permitted the military to give qualified researchers discretionary access to classified files. The Privacy Act Lewy mentions went into effect in 1974. Perhaps that is part of the problem with accessing these records today?
Finally, Lewy's preface indicates his research was assisted by Major W. Hays Parks of the staff of the Judge Advocates General's School at Charlottesville, Virginia, Dr. Charles MacDonald and Vincent Demma of the Vietnam project of the U.S. Army Center of Military History, and John Henry Hatcher, formerly chief archivist of Vietnam records, U.S. army, who is credited with helping cut through bureacratic red-tape. Perhaps some of these individuals or those who knew them could be of assistance to researchers today.
Thanks for the comments!
...May you continue to shine the light of truth on the darkness of the Left, The Drive By Media, and the Democrat Party.
In this case, skepticism arises from the fact that NCIS says they can't locate the report and have no record of an investigation or report. If it was restricted material, spokesman Paul O'Donnell could have said that.
Other reasons for skepticism include the charged nature of the topic at the time, Nixon's interest in publicly debunking WSI witnesses, and the lack of any other person saying they saw the report or helped in the NCIS investigation.
You could also take the analogy of a biography or autobiography, where in many cases you only have one person's word to go on for key events, but the biography is not automatically considered unsourced or unsubstantiated for that reason, unless there is some specific reason for doubt. On this analogy you could see Lewy's footnote as an autobiographical account of his investigation of the source indicated in his note. The credibility of this account essentially rests on Lewy's credibility as a historian, which is good.
Lewy's general credibility rests on his general record for accuracy and care, which I gather scores high. On this detail he merits skepticism, mostly because of the absence of an NCIS record of the report, and partly because he later said he can't remember if he read the report or was just briefed on its contents. His account deserves a passing mention because of Lewy's good reputation, as a heads-up for later discovery.
But it should get only a passing and properly qualified mention, and not an easily refuted citation as proof of WSI fraudulence.
Lewy's preface indicates he began writing his book around 1972, and his access to documents was facilitated by an Executive Order issued on March 8, 1972, which permitted the military to give qualified researchers discretionary access to classified files. The Privacy Act Lewy mentions went into effect in 1974. Perhaps that is part of the problem with accessing these records today?
Again, I think in that case, NCIS would say that, and even offer a version redacted enough to secure the privacy of the WSI witnesses who requested anonymity.
Finally, Lewy's preface indicates his research was assisted by Major W. Hays Parks of the staff of the Judge Advocates General's School at Charlottesville, Virginia, Dr. Charles MacDonald and Vincent Demma of the Vietnam project of the U.S. Army Center of Military History, and John Henry Hatcher, formerly chief archivist of Vietnam records, U.S. army, who is credited with helping cut through bureacratic red-tape. Perhaps some of these individuals or those who knew them could be of assistance to researchers today.
Yes. Also, a long shot: did Senator Hatfield seek to insure that the NCIS would follow through, and therefore some records in his papers might help?
Other reasons for skepticism include the charged nature of the topic at the time, Nixon's interest in publicly debunking WSI witnesses, and the lack of any other person saying they saw the report or helped in the NCIS investigation.
These are things that trip my critical thinking, but my skepticism is not directed at Lewy. The probability of forgery seems low due both to Lewy's credibility and to the lack of motive: he has no pro-war axe to grind in his book, and the passage under discussion when read in context is not really a focal point of his study, it is something he mentions in passing. It is only in light of the 2004 campaign that it has acquired the type of significance that would constitute a motive for forgery. Furthermore, since we know from a primary source that there was an Army investigation, the possibility that there was no parallel investigation by other military bodies seems far-fetched. The existence of a report such as Lewy describes is what one would logically expect, it is the alleged absence of such a report which seems grounds for skepticism. If we thus rule out forgery, and if we rule out an oral briefing--as the format of the citation necessitates, the later interview's speculation of an oral briefing can be dismissed by the actual content of the book which is unequivocally clear--the logical conclusion is that Lewy saw the document he described in detail and documented in proper academic format, and something has since happened to it. What happened to it is my main question at this point, and that is indeed something that could be investigated further. Your suggestion of looking into Hatfield's papers is a good one, there are other avenues that might be pursued. But as far as the citation of Lewy's study in To Set the Record Straight goes, I don't think Lewy has been refuted simply because his primary source cannot be located decades later, so I don't see a major problem with the citation. However if the authors wanted to make the type of qualification you suggest in a future edition of the book, this could be done simply enough by mentioning the article with the later discussion of Lewy's study in a footnote and briefly responding to the article, which is an accepted method of addressing secondary literature on a topic.
I also don’t question Lewy’s honesty.
Unlike you, though, I tend towards thinking the report never got made, for my stated reasons.
My main objection to the NCIS report reference concerns its current use by many challengers of the WSI. It never fails that someone will trumpet it as “proving” that WSI witnesses lied, usually not knowing that no such NCIS document is available to back up this claim.
A “gotcha” moment, the revelation of no available NCIS report, has already been used by WSI defenders to discredit the WSI challengers. A shame, because newcomers to the controversy might be dissuaded from reading more from the WSI skeptic side.
The NCIS citation shouldn’t be pushed front and center in the debunking of WSI, but listed only as a footnote - a flag to scholars for future resolution.
I also understand you're not meaning to question Lewy's honesty, but as I see it that would be a logical corollary of questioning the report's existence, because of what I pointed out about the format Lewy uses in his original footnote. I'm quite familiar with the format Lewy is using from my own training in citing government documents--I trained under two specialists in this area, one of whom wrote a style manual on the subject that I employed in a research project involving government archives. Contrary to what the later article prompted by the 2004 campaign suggests, what Lewy has in his original footnote does not really leave open a viable possibility of an oral briefing, which would have had its own distinct format. If you want to satisfy yourself on this you might compare the format Lewy is using and his general documentation style with the guidelines for citing unpublished public/government documents laid out in such style manuals as Turabian (12.19) and the Chicago Manual of Style (15.374), as well as other historical works besides Lewy's which cite government documents and specifically military documents. (Contrast with Turabian 9.102 and 11.50 and Chicago 15.262-269 on the format used to cite interviews and personal communications.) The documentation in Lewy's original book follows these guidelines, more or less--as the Chicago Manual notes, there is some flexibility allowed among specialists, with the main demand being consistency by an author. This is the relevant point as far as whether Lewy is intending to reference a written report or oral briefing, because the documentation at stake here--the primary source for our discussion, if you will--is Lewy's original footnote, not the commentary in the later article--in other words, the article has the same relation to Lewy's original book as a secondary source to a primary one. The fact Lewy does not remember the circumstances of his footnote decades later during a politically-motivated and probably impromptu interview is not a criterion for documentation--no academic is required to remember the circumstances of an obscure footnote when called upon for an interview decades later, the very purpose of footnoting is to preserve a record to outlast the writer's memory--and does not affect the validity of his original documentation. So this is not really a "gotcha", it's more of a rhetorical dodge employed in Kerry and the VVAW's defense by the article. The article did not really give Lewy any space to elaborate on the issue, the author/editor seemingly placed a question to him and then put his answer in a context that suited a political purpose, characterizing it as an "admission", which is the article's own term rather than a direct quotation from Lewy. In the rush to get the article out in time to defend Kerry, I wonder how much effort was actually made to locate the report, beyond calling and quoting O'Donnell, who is a spokesman rather than a research assistant for the authors of politically-motivated articles--a phone call to a busy spokesman is not a substitute for the years of archival research Lewy did and hardly refutes it, and O'Donnell does not imply otherwise in his quoted remark. You will note that O'Donnell's quoted statement raises the possibility that "such records could have been destroyed or misplaced", rather than suggesting that there was no report. I see the odds of the report being refiled and/or reclassified as the most likely possibility, while the possibility of Lewy quoting a nonexistent report, in as much detail as he gives and in the format he uses, seems too remote to entertain as viable.
I am currently in the process of determining where in the National Archives a report such as Lewy describes should have been filed. If I come up with any significant information I will post it.
Might this help? James J. Reilley LTC USA (RET) said:
The U.S. Navy Criminal Investigative Service was tasked with investigating Lt Kerry's allegations. They found them to be baseless. Privately Naval Investigators expressed outrage at the ridiculousness of the accusations. The origins of the charges were often from supposed veterans who were found to have never served in Vietnam. It was slander that demoralized our forces, eroded our resolve, and gave aid and comfort to our enemy.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Reilley1
Did NCIS investigators speak to Reilley, and can he remember their names? Perhaps they can help find the report.
The fact Lewy does not remember the circumstances of his footnote decades later during a politically-motivated and probably impromptu interview is not a criterion for documentation--no academic is required to remember the circumstances of an obscure footnote when called upon for an interview decades later, the very purpose of footnoting is to preserve a record to outlast the writer's memory--and does not affect the validity of his original documentation. So this is not really a "gotcha", it's more of a rhetorical dodge employed in Kerry and the VVAW's defense by the article.
By "gotcha", I meant not so much Lewy's later memory but rather the embarrassment of WSI skeptics not being able to produce the NCIS report, heretofore trumpeted as proof of fraudulence, especially after assuming that it could be accessed if desired.
The article did not really give Lewy any space to elaborate on the issue, the author/editor seemingly placed a question to him and then put his answer in a context that suited a political purpose, characterizing it as an "admission", which is the article's own term rather than a direct quotation from Lewy.
He has many sympathetic forums, including here, within which to expand his remarks, his health permitting. He might be the go-to guy for finding the NCIS report.
Regarding Lewy's health, I don't know his current health, but he was born in 1923, so he would've been in his 50s when he wrote his book, and about 81 at the time he was interviewed for that article, closer to 85 today.
Good point that has me thinking - perhaps should we have all candidates release their FBI files.
It would seem to be in the public’s interest. Interesting idea. . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.