on on me. That Kelly Robinson was at this thing. But I don't recall A Oh, from the CIA? Sam Adams, of course, would have

Transcription

1 294 on M 2 at Langley? Q. Do you recall hether he as at the August conference 3 A. o, sir. I don't recall Colonel Lanterman's presence. 4 Q. Go go back a step, other than yourself and George 5 Godding, ho as part of the MACV delegation to the Langley 6 conference in August of '67? 7 A. I didn't recall this on my on. Somebody must have..;. 8 told me or I must have read it somehere. Sam must have told on on me. That Kelly Robinson as at this thing. But I don't recall co 9 1 it. I don't kno. This is just -- the only ones I could ci 11 remember ithout any prompting ere myself and General Godding. u C!l 12 Q. Who else as there at the Langley conference from the >= cr: Q. 13 CIA:? cr: 14 A. That's the one I thought I as talking about. <J) cr: Cl -'..: From the CIA? A Oh, from the CIA? Sam Adams, of course, ould have been there Anybody else? A I don't kno. I don't kno hether George Allen as there or George Carver as there or ho else. I didn't file it aay in my mind. I talked to several people. Q. Do you recall ho from the CIA as at the Saigon '------"-----"" '--'--"-"-."-.,---.1."--"

2 , ; i conf erence in September, '67? 2 A. I remember George Carver being there. I believe he on 8 3 as the chief of the delegation. That's the only one I recall 4 besides Sam being there. 5 Q. Do you recall hether you sa George Allen anytime 6 during 67? 7 & I don't recall. I don't recall meeting George Allen...;. Do you kno hat George Allen as doing during 67? on on 9 c..i A. o, sir, I don't kno hat he as doing. 1 Q. Ho many times did you see George Carver during 67? ci 11 A. I sa George Carver at the conference, and that's about () CJ 12 the only time. I could have seen him at the Langley conference. >= c.. 13 But George Carver did not stick in my memory until the September 14 conference. He as chief of the delegation. And that's the (/) only reason I remember George Carver. As I recall it, he as...j <t the chief of the CIA delegation. Q. Did you ever see the report of the SIE of ? & o. I can't remember ever seeing it because it ould 2 21 have been after my time. I ent from there to Fort Holabird to the Army Intelligence School and I didn't really look back. Do you kno ho close or ho far the totals in the document ere from the original briefing that you gave

3 "' "' General Westmoreland? 2 A. o. ot having any recollection of having seen i. t, 3 I ouldn't kno. o, sir. 4 Q. Well, do you have any knoledge that the numbers that 5 ere finally accepted at the September or after the September 6 SIE ere numbers that you could not endorse? 7 I don't even recall hat the figures ere. 8 9 ti Q. Are you really objecting I don't really believe -- I don't kno -- I can't 1 remember having seen the SIE. 11 Q. So, you're not () <.!l ;:: II: II: 14 C/) II: Cl -' «A. I'm not competent. I don't have any knoledge of that. As far as you kno, the numbers that ere ultimately adopted could be ones that you ould have endorsed in 67? ere A. I can't kno that ithout being aare of hat they 2 21 As I said before, I don't recall these self-defense and secret self-defense and political order of battle being dropped out of it. I thought they ere still in, as I best recalled. I thought they ere still in. Let me just interrupt to say, I'm just asking questions; I'm not testifying. So that if I say something or ask a question --.-,----.,----,.---."---,

4 r-----;---, r--- --' ,.... I'm trying to elicit information and not telling you things. 2 Q. Did anyone, such as Mr. Adams or Mr. Crile, ever 3 discuss ith you, prior to the broadcast in January, 82, 4 hether you ere unhappy or dissatisfied ith the results of 5 the SIE? 6 A. I don't recall conversations specifically about the 7 SIE ith George Crile or ith Sam Adams. It must have come 8 up. It could have come up, let's put it this ay. I don't " 9 :I. remember a conversation ith them. 1 Had you been asked in 81 hether you ere satisfied 11 ith the outcome of the SIE, hat ould you have said? ";:: 12 A I probably ould have said I asn't because I ould c.. 13 assume it asn't the figures eren't hat our intelligence 14 shoed them to be. (/) -' «2 71 That ould have been an assumption on your part? A Yes. An assumption. That the figures ere not -- if I asn't happy hen I left Saigon -- and I asn't happy then I asn't satisfied ith the figures -- I certainly -- I'm sure I ouldn't have been satisfied ith the SIE. I don't remember seeing the SIE. Q. Well, you're guessing. A I'm guessing. Yes, I'm guessing at this point.

5 298 'I'hey might have told me hat the figures ere in the 2 SIE, and if they ere loer than that, this is something I 3 could have said. I don't kno.... "' 8 "' 4 Q. You don't remember hat figures you briefed General 5 estmoreland on, do you? 6 A. What figures -- the to briefings? 7 Q. Yes..;. A o. I don't remember the total figures. I don't 9 I remember the exact total figures. They ere considerably higher 1 than hat e eventually touting at Langley and at the September () 11 conference. (!) f= 12 Q. As of the time you left? - 13 A. As of the time I left. 14 MR. DORSE: Why don't e take our break here? CfJ (A brief recess as taken.) -'..: MR. DORSE: Back on the record. BY MR. DORSE: (Resuming) Q. Colonel Hakins, you signed an affidavit on September 7, 83 that has been made an exhibit. 2 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you and Mr. Baron discuss hy you ere going to sign that affidavit? I " "_" "_" -:- " "-----r-r--r"---""

6 -.._ ,._-----_.._-- ---,----'... -r r on... " on on A. I thought it as expected of me that I ould make an 2 affidavit. I as asked to give an affidavit, and I says, hy 3 not.. 4 Q. On September 7th you kne that you ere going to be 5 deposed, did you not? 6 A. Yes, I kne that I ould be deposed. 7 8 correct? 9 A. Yes. ;!; And that you ere going to testify under oath, is that 1 Was it ever discussed beteen you and Mr. Baron hy u 11 if you ere going to testify under oath he expected you to give <.!l ;:: 12 an affidavit? "- 13 Z 14 (/) Cl..J «A. o. I never questioned him. He-- Did he express -- I'm sorry. A. He asked me about an affidavit and I acquiesed. Did he ever express any concern about your memory, the state of your memory? 2 71 A. o. He never criticied me or expressed any concern, no. What about Mr. Adams? A. o. Mr. Adams has never questioned me or criticied me or expressed in concern, to use your ords. He never expressed

7 -'-.--' , , '---,-----""T'-r-'-----'--r any concern. 2 I have alays been very frank ith both these gentlemen, 3 as I have ith everybody else. My memory for statistics is 4 not very good going back that far. 5 Q. Was there ever any discussion of hether it ould be 6 easi.er for you to testify if you gave an affidavit? 7 U"> A. one. one hatsoever ' 8 U"> Q. I gather you read the affidavit? U"> 9 A Yes, sir. I signed it. ti 1 Q. And ho as it prepared physically? Do you recall? ci 11 t) A. Well, Mr. Cravath -- and there as another layer; (!) 12 ;:: I don't remember his last name. I believe his first name as c:: c. 13 Randy -- came to see me, and I talked i.th them. I had discussion c:: 14 CJl ranging over to hours or three hours, and then I gave them, c::...j or they already had in their possession, things hich I had c( read about -- hich I had ritten, you kno, about the CBS 2 71 presentation, about my experiences in Vietnam. And this as the sum total of the information that I made available to them in riting this affidavit. Did they make available to you anything that you have not mentioned? A. I don't recall. I don't recall anything they made.-

8 31..,...t "" 8 C;; available anything to me that I didn't have. 2 Q. Who actually prepared the affidavit? 3 A. I'm not sure hich one of the layers, hether Bob 4 or Randy, prepared the initial draft of the affidavit. 5 Q. Did they send you a copy? 6 A. They gave me a copy of it. I looked over it; I made 7 corrections here and there, and I made some eliminations of 9 things I did not feel that I could sign as a sorn affidavit. And this as used to prepare the final affidavit, hich I did 1 sign. 11 Q. Do you recall anything specifically that you eliminated c.l c.'l 12 from the affidavit? ;:: - 13 W Z 14 A. I don't recall hat I eliminated specifically. Q. Did they and you discuss the importance of the self- (/)...J «defense forces in relation to the guerrillas before you signed the affidavit? A. Yes. They asked me if I ould tell them hat I 2 71 considered to be the importance of the self-defense and the secret self-defense, and I so did. One other thing that as available to them as a speech that I made don at Maxell Air Force Base, and you have a copy of that, the original draft of that, and this subject."--" ' r.-'-----" , r [.--

9 32 of the secret self-defense and the self-defense as addressed 2 in this document. 3 Q. Let me ask you a question. When you use the term 4 "guerrillas", do you refer to both hamlet guerrillas and village 5 guerrillas? 6 A. Yes, sir. I'm trying to use the same terminology 7 that e used in the MACV OB, hich I believe stated they ere 8 part-time guerrillas, full-time guerrillas and then the self- 9 defense and the secret self-defense. Those catagories. cj 8 Cl >= 12 5l D...J «1 Which ere the full-time guerrillas? / These ere the ones that ere in the village, and-the,/ p-time "":"_belie, ere. the ham] At._ guerrillas. Q. And both of those catagories WOUld--: the 14 OB under guerrillas, is that correct? A Yes. That's the ay both of them ere listed, I believe I used the definitions that ere in the MACV OB Summary that 2 71 e ere using back in May of 67, and I guess throughout the summer there. Q. o, could you read into the record a paragraph from your affidavit, hich is Paragraph, beginning on Page 12? A. Paragraph. You ant me to read this aloud? Q. Yes, please. 1..,._. " , r I

10 33 A. "It is also my understanding that General Westmoreland..., "..., " 9 I c.i 1 c:i 11 () CJ 12 i= J < stated that he decided to drop the self-defense from the Order of Battle because he felt these enemy forces posed no real military threat to our troops." Do you ant me to go further? Yes. Read the hole paragraph. - y.....-ror-believe these self-defense forces, hiles dangerous as the enemy's main and local force soldiers, neverthe less ere an important part of the enemy threat in South vcau ed a great deal of harm "As I recall, during 66 and 67, about one-third of all allied casualties ere caused by mines and booby-traps, the principal eapons of the self-defense forces. "In comparison, during World War II, only about three percent of the U. S. casualties ere caused by these devices. Indeed, several months ago in West Point, Mississippi, here I live, a young veteran of the Vietnam War died. He had been 2 71 one of U. S. Army soldiers riding through a hamlet in South Vietnam in a to and a half ton truck. A Vietnamese boy of about age 12 tossed a grenade into the back of the truck. All but to of the American soldiers ere killed instantly. This young man came back to West Point a total cripple. The Vietnamese _,._.. '.. H._'.-----" I :'--, ---'-

11 ,.----r'.-"------" , boy of 12 ould have been part of the self-defense militia 2 catagory of the Order of Battle. 3 "To the best of my recollection, about one-third of 4 the self-defense militia in the South Vietnamese countryside 5 ere composed of omen. Most of the rest ere draft-age males." 6 Q. Colonel Hakins, do you regard that account as a 7 persuasive one for the inclusion of self-defense militia in the... 8 Order of Battle? 9 A. Yes. I think it states my viepoint. Yes, I think 1 cj it is persuasive. 11 o, you mentioned a fe minutes ago a speech you gave. (.) (!) 12 Did you give a speech on the subject of the order of battle? CL 13 A. Right. At Montgomery Air Force Base. It as a 14 graduation address I made there. (fj...j MR. DORSE: Could e have marked as Plaintiff's «Exhibit 69 a document hich I'll identify in a second? 2 21 First, Colonel Hakins, I ould like to identify a document hich is a photocopy of five-by eight index cards, and at the top it says, "The Unconventional Enemy," and I believe it says "General -- Gen. Patton" and then "Miller Graduating Class." (The document referred to as.-

12 "--' '--"--'----'-'-'-----"-,. ---, r , marked Plaintiff's Exhibit umber for identification.) BY MR. DORSE: (Resuming) Q. Colonel Hakins, I ill ask you if this is a copy of your speech? A. Right. This is a copy of the speech I gave at the " " 8 7 graduating class. Q. When did you give that speech? :!. 9 A. It as in August, I believe. 1 Q. August of '83? (j 11 A. August of '83, yes. u Cl 12 Q. And in that speech, did you try to give as accurate i= Q. 13 account as you could? 14 A. I tried. (/) Cl Q. Is there any reason hy you ould not have been..j..: accurate in that? A. I don't kno. I might not have used the same ording as as used in this affidavit, but I tried to put it across to give them an understanding of the various catagories and hat 2 functions they served. 71 Q. Could you read the last line of hat is marked Page. Read that paragraph outloud, please.

13 _._._.. _-...,-._._-_ A. "Let me take a moment to make an important point Several months ago in West Point, Mississippi here I live, a young veteran of the Vietnam War died. He had been one of U. S. Army soldiers riding through a hamlet in South Vietnam 5 in a to and a half ton truck. A Vietnamese boy of about age 6 12 tossed a grenade into the back of the truck. All but to... 7 of the American soldiers ere killed instantly. This young..; 8 man came back to West Point a total cripple. The Vietnamese 9 boy of 12 probably as a member of a hamlet guerrilla unit." 1 Is that it? 11 That's hat I anted you to read. " 12 Is that the same incident in your affidabit? ;:: - 13 A. I think there is the ord "militia" thron in. I 14 didn't catch that in the affidavit. Cf) Colonel Hakins, you realie that this case to a -' <t substantial extent turns on the role of the seld-defense militia, do you not? A. I'm not sure hat it turns on. Q. You realie it is important, do you not, hat the 2 various personnel did, enemy personnel did, in the Vietnam War? 11 A. Right. Q. You realie that?

14 37 on.. C").. A. Yes. 2 Q. In hat has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit EO 9, you 3 called this 12 year old boy hat? What did you call him? 4 A. " probably a member of a guerrila hamlet unit." 5 And hat did you call him in your affidavit? 6 A. I believe I used the ord "militia" here. A "self- 7 8 on on 9 defense militia catagory." Why did you do that? Did anyone ask you to do that? A. obody asked me to do it. I just made a blunder in 1 <.i not using the same -- in not checking back to see if I used 11 the same ording here. lj " 12 ;:: But isn't the hole point of the paragraph to sho a. 13 the important -- in your affidavit, that is -- to sho the 14 importance of the self-defense militia? C1)..J A. Let me see no just hat e're talking about here; 4: Here I say "a self-defense militia catagory" and here 2 :n I say "a hamlet guerrila unit." Yes, this yes. This is a di.fference here.-- a self-defense militia that in reading over the affidavit. and I didn't catch What as the boy? Was he a member of the self-defense militia or hamlet guerrillas? A. He as probably a member of a hamlet -- let's see _._._._--,._._-_.._-_.-

15 - -_.. _ " let me see no. He as probably a member of the hamlet guerrilla 2 uni t:. I think I erred in this one right here. (Pointing to 3 document. ) 4 Q. "Right here" means? 5 A. Wri ting in the ord "militia unit." 6 I don't even think e used the ord "militia" in..., 7..,. the Order of Battle Summary here. It as a ord that as bandied C") 8..., about, but I believe this is hat e used in the Order of Battle. 9 Q. "This" refers to the speech, Exhibit 69? 1 A. Yes. The briefing, yes. ci 11 () Q. And that is the correct version, is that correct? <.'l 12 >= A. I believe this is the correct version Q. The one in 69? 14 (/) A. Yes, sir. D -' Q. ot in your sorn statement?..: A. ot in my sorn statement. I believe I made an error 2 71 here in putting the ord "self-defense militia" in there and I just didn't catch it at the time. Q. o, Colonel Hakins, in your speech on Page 1 and 11, you refer to "fish", is that correct? A. Yes. Q. In a rhetorical ay?

16 -.. _ _.-_._._----,-._._-_.. _ "' "' c.i A. Yes. This is a term that various riters used. Q. And ho, in that example, are the "fish"? A. These are the people. And I'll make that clear. They are the supporting base for this pyramid. They support it ith food, shelter, hiding places, by spying and information, and informing and by the performance of any number of duties of a logistical nature and also as active fighters, performing such acts as throing grenades, setting out booby-traps and mines and setting out sharp punches and stakes designed to 1 impale or injure or kill. ci 11 Q. o, hy are not the various "fish", the Viet Cong Ll Cl 12 populace at large, included in the enemy order of battle, Colonel j:: : Cl. 13 : 14 (j) :...J «Hakins? A. They ere. The ones that ere in these more or less organied units ere. The hamlet guerrilla, the village guerrilla, the secret self-defense, the self-defense. They ere catagoried. This ould be -- "fish" is a larger term to include the entire population. That is hy if you include them all you 2 could have got an enemy strength of four million or five million 11 if you added them all up. Are you saying that the four million or five million

17 31 M provided the support? 2 A. They ere required t.o support, yes. 3 Q. And that support ould include setting booby-traps 4 and laying mines? 5 A. Yes. The entire population, there ere certain members 6 of them that ere organied into units like hamlet guerrillas 7 and village guerrillas, but even those that ere not organied 8 9 into units ere also required to support the Viet Cong effort, ar effort. <..i 1 Let me make another comment. Let me look at that 11 again. I'm not sure I gave you hat I think is my best anser <.l (!) 12 on that thing. I'm still trying to roll this thing around in f=.. 13 my mind. LJ.J 14 I think I gave you the opposite anser; that this <f) LJ.J Cl...J «man that this boy of he ould have been associated ith the self-defense. That seems to be more accurate than the one 2 11 that appears in this one right here. I as riting them at different times, but I believe, if I'm alloed to retract my statement, or change my statement, I believe this kid more likely as a member of the self-defense rather than the hamlet guerrilla, considering his age. Although they probably had kids his age in that hamlet guerrilla business., _w-----r' '---.,----.

18 _'. ' W ---'-"_'_' " 311 The self-defense included omen and kids of all ages The Marines captured a kid up in their area once and there as a lot of publicity about that in the Stars and Stripes. He as about 11 years old and he as an expert at setting mines and booby-traps, and they made a big issue of that. Q. Was he self-defense or as he a guerrilla?... "" 7 A. I don't remember any identification that ever came..,. 8 out in the Stars and Stripes, but he more than likely as a C;; 9 member of a self-defense. I <..i 1 Q. Could he have also ci 11 A. I'm telling you hat he as likely to have been. () C!l 12 Q. Well, could he also have been perhaps a member of ;:: II: CL 13 LLJ II: 14 (f) II: LLJ the population at large assisting a self-defense or guerrilla A (Interrupting) He could have been. He could have Cl been. But it is likely that a kid ith that much expertise --...J «he had been trained ell -- that he ould have been a member of the self-defense. A member of a unit rather than just a kid running around setting out booby-traps and mines. This kid ho had been furnished ith this grenade, he 2 had to have gotten it somehere. That's hy on reflection he 11 probably as a member of a self-defense unit rather than a hamlet guerrilla unit considering his age.

19 , -:-_., ,._-_.. _---;"" , ' "' , Q. But you just said that many guerrillas ere young. 2 A. Yes. Many 3 MR. BARO: Object to the form of the question. He 4 did not say that many guerrillas ere that age. 5 Q. Well, let me ask you. Were many guerrillas 6 A. (Interrupting) I think it's possible that some of.. 7., 8 9 them ere young. But this age group, it is more likely that he ould have been a member of the self-defense unit rather than the hamlet guerrilla unit. 1 ti Q. o, in your speech on Page 3 you state that "One 11 of the order of battle problems that e never resolved to my (.) <.? 12 ;:: on satisfaction ere the administrative elements hich provided c: a. 13 various non-combatant services for the VA and main forces." c: 14 Yes, sir. We never got a handle on it to my satisc: C/l -' faction. I think for a time there I simply gave up because..: if I'd come up ith a figure probably as large as it as I ould have had to have sept it under a rug or something or 2 21 thron it out. Q. When you said to your satisfaction in this speech, hat did you mean? A. That e never did -- exactly hat I said there; that it as never to my satisfaction that e got a good valid figure

20 313..,.... on the administrative services. 2 D Is that because of things like the use of civilians 3 and the like? 4 A. Civilians as a big problem. Where you stop counting 5 civilians and you start counting the military. 6 Sam Adams made good points and other people made good points that maybe e should count them all. D Civilians as ell as non-civilians? A Civilians as ell as military. But they are like so ti 1 many damn roaches. I mean, e had a can full of roaches and <.l 11 there as no place to put anymore roaches. Where ere e going C!l 12 i= <l to put them? You kno, if e couldn't get in these irregular units and these politicals, hat am I going to do ith additional (J) administrative services, even if e do ork it out? It as...j <{ 2 71 a tremendous problem D Did you form an opinion in 67 as to hether civilians should be counted as part of the military order of battle? position A. I argued for the opinion that civilians -- or the that civilians should not be counted. Q. Did you believe that position? A. I believed that position then and I still believe it no; that the civilians should not have been. But hat I'm saying ----'-----'-----r' " ,..--

21 ,-._-----_.._-.---, r ; is that they had persuasive arguments that they should have been. 2 But I rejected it then and I still reject it. 3 And Sam Adams and I have never come to any agreement, 4 and e probably never ill come to any agreement, on that issue. 5 Do you kno hat proportion of the people that Mr. 6 Adams anted to include as part of the administrative services 7 ere civilians? 8 9 A. There ould have been considerably more. My position that I as arguing for ere more those in sort of a command 1 cj or cadre position, a leadership position. And the administrative 11 services ere obviously scarfing up people from the countryside, (.) Cl 12 forcing them into labor, say, to support maybe one operation ;:: a. 13 and then let them go back to the fields. And then they ould 14 call them in hen they needed them again. (/) It's a case of here you dra the line to stop counting....j «Do you believe that the figure that you presented on behalf of MACV represented the total, a reasonably accurate 2 71 total, of the full-time military people? A. Probably did not. I think I just took hat e had there that ould fit into the can. I think I ould have been illing -- I think I could see more there, but here as I going to put it? Where ould I put it if I came up ith such a figure?

22 3 U"l There as no room for it. We had the auditorium filled. Q. Do you kno hat the total order of battle as in the OB as of October, 67? 4 A. As of October? What the total as? What the bottom 5 6 C'l 8 line figure as? Q. Yes. 7 A. I don't remember hat that figure as. I kno hat..; it as in May of 31 (sic) because I have a summary to refresh U"l U"l 9 my memory. But I don't have any figure available to me for ci 1 October. <..l 11 Q. Do you kno hether it as in the neighborhood of (!l 12 23,? cc >= c.. 13 A. Which? The bottom line? cc 14 Q. Yes. cc A. The total? And on hat date?...j..: Q. October, 67. A. Oh, I don't kno that. I'd been gone. I had left. See, I left in September. As I said before, I didn't look back. Q. Do you recall in talking to Hodding Carter that there 2 as a discussion of articles in Time and eseek on the subject 71 of the order of battle? A. Yes.

23 3 C') -it hat do you recall of those articles? 2 A. I just recall there ere articles, and here, again, 3 I hope my memory serves my correctly, that they ere articles 4 saying that there as a dispute ithin the intelligence community 5 on the order of battle, the enemy order of battle, in Vietnam. 6 I don't think that anybody reading from these articles could 7 8 deduce the specifics of hat as there, but somebody as arguing for a higher figure or a l,oer figure; that there as a dispute 9 going on. Li "" 1 And ere those magaines available to the people in ci 11 u Saigon? (!l 12 i= A. Yes. Certainly. That is here I ould have read it, Cl. 13 if I read it. I seem to remember that there ere such articles 14 CJ) in the paper. They ould have gotten them off the same nesstand Cl...J «2 71 that I got them off of. I may be rong. They may not have been such. But I seem to recall that there ere articles in either Time magaine or eseek, or both, that there as an argument going on ithin the intelligence community concerning a difference of opinion on the strength of the enemy. Colonel Hakins, one of the things that you produced yesterday as a small black looseleaf book and e have photocopied _t, ' H "--..-,.--r '

24 -' _.._--._-...,._._--_.. _--._-_.,------_._-,----_._-: the pages six to a page, and I ould like to have that marked.....; (.) <!l 12 ;:: - 13 W 14 r/) -' <I: 2 11 as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, please. (The document referred to as marked Plaintiff's Exhibit umber 7 for identification.) Q. (By Mr. Dorsen) First of all, does Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 appear to be a copy of the book that you produced yesterday? A. Yes. This is my handriting, yes. When as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 prepared? A. I don't kno. I'd have to go back through that book. I seemed to have found a date as late as June, 67, if I recall. There as a date in there that I scribbled in there somehere. Q. What as the book used for? A. It as used, obviously, to refresh my memory on various units in the order of battle holdings. Q. This as for your. personal use? A. This as for my personal use. Q. o, I'd like to sho you and direct your attention on the third photocopy page. a scheduled called "Irregular." There is a typeritten schedule,

25 3 A. Yes. This is really the only page in the notebook 2 that's really of -- this appears to have been a breakout of 3 figures that I as carrying around ith me for some such reason. 4 I'm not sure hy I prepared it. 5 You see the dates right here? June, 67? This 6 ould probably be the end figures. And these figures, I don't 7 kno hether these ere the figures that e ere carrying in 8 the Order of Battle Summary or hether the figure as hat 9 our position ould be or hat. I don't recall hat reason I (,) o (.) (!) >= : : Z Sl : Cl...J «1 had these things in there except they ere there for some reason 11 so that I could quickly pull it out and say this is the figure 12 here. 13 Are you saying you have no recollection hat these 14 figures represent? A. I kno hat they represent. This is a breakout of irregular strength: guerrilla, self-defense, secret self-defense and total by corps areas, and then you have a total. And then you have a political OB at the bottom Excuse me. I misspoke. I meant as to hat period of time these figures reflect the irregular strength. A. The only figure I could tie it into is the figure that says over here "Average Combat Support Strength, June, 67." _._ ,._._ "--_._---,._-----_.._------, I --_..._._-_.,---_.- _._-

26 -: r _._-_._---., So, it must have been ithin this time frame here. 2 Q. Well, hen you say i thin the time frame, do you kno 3 hether it as prepared in June or Mayor April or July? 4 A. o, sir. I don't kno hen it as prepared. This 5 is the only figure that ould give you any indication of a 6 dating of this, is this "June, '66" and "June, '67." So, I.., ould assume that it as after June of '67, because you've got a comparision here of a year's time of hat the maneuver battalion strength had been reduced by or had gron -- had been reduced 1 by, it looks like here. :i: 11 But hat time frame these are in, I'm not sure hether (.) (!l 12 i= that as Mayor June or hat. a. 13 Do you kno hether these ere the numbers that you 14 presented at the first briefing? (/)...J I don't believe they ould have been. The first thing..: that came to my mind hen I sa this is it might have been 2 11 figures that e ere touting at -- hen as that conference in Langley? Q. In August. A. In August. Well, this ould have been -- I don't kno hether this as hat e ere holding at that time or not. But these ould not have been because this as June of '67 and _

27 _ _ _-_.. _-_ _---_.. - ' '---_.._- 32 this ould have been at the end of June, '67, and that briefing 2 as given right around the 31st of Mayor the first of June, 3 somehere in that time period. 4 Do you kno hen the irregular -- could you just put 5 your initials up in the left-hand corner? 6 A. Yes.!") 7 ".;. 9 (Witness initials document.) Q. Do you kno hen the irregular schedule that you've just initialed, hen that as prepared? 1 c..i A. When these figures ere prepared? 11 Yes. (,) (!l 12 ;::: & o, sir. I don't remember hen they ere prepared. c: - 13 Do you-kno hether they ere prepared in May and just c: 14 held on by you after May? (/) c: & I don't remember. I just don't remember hen they -'..: ere prepared. Whether they ere held on by me after Mayor 2 21 not. I just don't recall hen these figures the only one I can pinpoint is this must have been prepared after June of 67 because the date appears there. But these, I don't. I just call your attention to to other lists on that page, ith the last entry of May, 67. A. May, 67. Yes.

28 _,..._._,..H -""._. ".., , f ' "... Q. Does that help you in any ay? 2 A. o. It does not help me in any ay because it doesn't 3 necessarily have anything to do ith this. If I could compare 4 this ith the May Order of Battle Summary, hich e have a copy 5 of, e could see if it has any relationship to hat appears in 6 that Q. I think I can safely say it does not. A. It does not correspond to that? Q. The question is hether this as something that you 1 prepared for the first briefing of General estmoreland -- ci () 11 A. o. (!) 12 Q. Or the second briefing of General Westmoreland? c:.. 13 LLJ A o. o. I don't believe those ere the figures that c: 14 ere prepared. C/) c: LLJ...J Q. Why do you say that? «A. Because it seems to me that the figures that e had 2 21 ere considerably more than this. That's the best of my recollection. That the figures e had -- these appear to me to be scaled don figures after the briefings, the to briefings, to General Westmoreland. Is it your best recollection that the figures ere the figures after the to briefings?

29 3 "..t A. They ere figures that ere scaled don after the 2 briefings. My best recollection, the figures that I briefed to 3 General Westmoreland ere more than this in the total. That's 4 my best recollection. I just don't -- I can't pinpoint a date 5 on this. 6 Q. Ho do you recall that? What the figures ere that 7 you briefed to General Westmoreland? 8 "" 9 same. A. Well, I just feel that these figures just eren't the We had higher figures than this. c.i 1 Do you kno ho much higher? 11 A. I don't kno ho much higher. I could just say (!) 12 >= - 13 W 14 rj) -' «considerable is the best I could figure on the thing. it seemed to me like these political OB figures particularly ould have been higher than that. Q. Higher than 81, OOO? A Higher than the 81, figure. But Is that the one you are principally referring to? 2 71 A. That and all the rest of them, too. I thought e had higher figures than that. I looked at that thing very carefully and I never could pin it don as to just hat time frame this as. Were there any entries that you made in this booklet T ' -,-

30 323 {) "" after you left Vietnam? pinpoint. A. I don't kno of any. I didn't find any that I could I hadn't looked for entries that I could pinpoint ith dates after Vietnam. I just don't kno. I can look through it and see and tell you hether or not I can identify any that I might have made after I left Vietnam, but I don't kno of any. I didn't notice any hen I glanced through it. 8 {) Q. o, I believe you testified that you felt the {) 9 political cadre belonged in the military order of battle, is that 1 correct? 6 11 Ll A. Yes, sir. That as the conclusion I came to. " 12 ;:: Q. Do you kno hat General McChristian's vies on that Cl. 13 ere? 14 (/) A. General McChristian as the one that put them in the...j «order of battle. Q. Do you kno hether he ever changed his vies? A. ot to my knoledge did he ever change his vies. I doubt that General McChristian ould have ever changed his vies because he as so insistent on getting those 2 figures in there in the first place. And as I testified earlier, 71 I asn't satisfied of them being in there in the first place. I think I as trying to get out of a lot of ork because it.' -' '.-R-H-- r.-----"

31 324 did make it more difficult. But I came around to the conclusion 2 that the General had a very good idea there. 3 Q. Do you kno hether anyone suggested it to General 4 McChristian? The inclusion of the political cadre? 5 A. o, sir. I alays accepted it as his on idea that 6 they ould be. 7 '<t CO).., 8 9 Before marking this, hich I plan to do, if it could be identified by the itness, I'd like to sho you hat is a typeritten document of 5-odd pages. I think the last numbered 1 <.i page is 54, and then I count four additional pages, entitled ci 11 "The Enemy Order of Battle in the Republic of Vietnam, " u C!l 12 What is that? i= a. 13 A. This is a draft of something I started on, I think, 14 in early 8. I just -- I as beteen jobs and I as looking (/) for something to do and I told myself one day I ould just try...j «to sit don and put don hat I could remember of my experiences 2 71 in my tour of duty in Vietnam. never did It is a very rough draft and I abandoned it. I I just dropped it hen I realied that I did not have enough substantive data to put in it to make it of any historical value. It as simply an impressionistic thing of my recollections of Vietnam, and I doubted that anybody -;--.' '.---."--_r '--,-'-'--'--''

32 _:"_.. ' M_H --,-,. 325 ould be concerned ith my impressionistic recollections of 2 South Vietnam, and so I just thre it in a folder and forgot.. 3 about it until I got your message to look for anything. So, 4 I found this thing. I had even forgotten it existed. So, I 5 thre it in the bunch of papers. There it is. 6 Q. Did you in the period since you drafted this acquire 7 any significant additional information or data? 8 9 A. Since then? Q. Yes. <.i 1 A. Yes. I've heard things since then and I've thought ci 11 about it more, and I've been able to tie a fe things in. But () <!l 12 my personal recollections are so fuy at this time that I still >= c:: Q. 13 couldn't do anything ith it unless I got my hands on some c:: 14 data to use to flesh it out and make it a substantive document. (f) c:: Q. Do you remember hen you stopped orking on...j «Well, let me mark this, if I may. We're referring to it at some length. ffi. DORSE: Could e mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit 71? The 58-page document referred to previously? 2 21 (The document referred to as marked Plaintiff's Exhibit umber 71 for identification.)._-----.,------_.

33 326 THE WITESS: Do you ant to repeat the question? 2 MR. DORSE: Yes. 3 BY MR. DORSE: (Resuming) 4 The question is, do you remember ith any greater 5 degree of specificity hen you stopped orking on it? 6 I ould say probably late spring or early summer. 7 '<T..;. 8 1\i 9 I got a job -- let me try to get my chronology together here. I took a job ith the orth Mississippi Industrial Development Association sometime in the summer of 8. This c.i 11 (.) c.? 12 i= Cl (/) 1 as a temporary job, or part-time job, and I kno that I didn't do anything, any riting, after that because I as tied up ith my job. I didn't have time. I as running that job and running the Clay County Reagan campaign at the same time, so I didn't have time for riting. Cl...J When after you stopped riting hat has been marked -: Plaintiff's Exhibit 71 ere you able to devote any significant amount of time to thinking about the order of battle matter? A. I didn't do any significant thinking about it until 2 71 I got that call ould I let myself be intervieed, or ould I consent to an intervie, by George Crile for a commentary that they ere making. I don't think -- no, none in beteen that time. -; ,

34 -, , _.._ C'J " vie\o,1? Q. Ho much preparation did you do for Mr. Crile' s inter- A. I looked in my file cabinet -- and I think you have some other documents there and I read through those things that ere published by the State Department and the Department of 6 Defense. I read through those and they eren't much help_to me. 7 Q. Is it accurate to say that until sometime after you 8 9 ere intervieed by Mr. Crile that your recollection and under- standing and knoledge of the events in 66 and 67 in Vietnam 1 did not increase substantially? 11 A. They did increase. I don't kno if you ould say (.) C) 12 substantially. I've had to tell you so many times today that i= a. 13 I don't remember that I ould hestitate to use the adverb 14 "substantially." (/) Q. Well, just so I make sure I understand --...J..: A. I started from practically ero and I kno a little bit. I can remember a little bit more about it... When did you acquire taking the period hen you stopped riting on this to the present, hen did you acquire 2 most of your information or knoledge? 21 A. I ould say from the intervie period on to the present day. When I acquired most of it, that's very difficult to

35 -T" , r' <"l pinpoint. That's, you kno, hard to measure. One time, one 2 day, I acquired more knoledge than I acquired on this day, 3 you kno, six months later; I just can't catagorie that in any 4 fashion. 5 I'd like to direct your attention to Page 49, and 6 in the middle of the page there is a sentence beginning: "The subject of the General's ambitious MR. DORSE: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) 1 MR. DORSE: On the record. 11 BY MR. DORSE: (Resuming) C,) Cl " and it goes on. 12 ;:: First, Colonel Hakins, the "general" referred to - 13 on Page 49, ho is that? W 14 A. This is General McChristian. (/) c Could you read outloud the paragraph beginning "The..J «General envisioned.. "? 2 71 A. "The General envisioned that hen this project as far enough along to arrant publication and distribution the old, orthless political cadre figures e reproduced faithfully each month in our Order of Battle Summary could be thron aay. Political cadre didn't believe in the order of battle of the enemy's armed forces. 'Gains, e've got a rotten apple in our

36 ' ',..H : barrel of oranges,' he pontificated grandly. I as beginning 2 to arm to his concept of a political order of battle, a 3 linguistic aberration that it as to my finicky, purist 4 conceit." 5 O, are you saying in that paragraph that you just 6 read that General McChristian did not believe that the political 7 cadre should be in the order of battle? C").. 8 A o, sir, nothing of the kind. I'm saying just hat 9 <.i I hrve testified to, I believe, this morning; that I didn't 1 believe at first that they belonged in there, and that I 1 1 armed I say there, "I armed" to the idea. u (!l 12 >= Q. Did you say that "I as beginning to arm to his concept of a political order of battle"? A. A political order of battle. C/l Cl.J «And you are saying that did not indicate that political cadre didn't belong in the order of battle of the enemy's armed forces? A. That as my first reaction to his idea that they should be a part of the order of battle. You notice later 2 that I called it an aberration. That's my first reaction to 21 it. Q. o, on Page 33 you refer to Joseph Alsop. Do you

37 recall that? 2 A. Yes, sir. I remember this. 3 Q. Could you summarie that incident in your on ords? 4 If you ant to read that first -- 5 A. Let me read it again first. I've told this to several 6 people about Alsop, the journalist (Witness reads document.) A. By the ay, e ere talking about yesterday these regiments that disappeared, you kno, and I as embarassed 1 because I even convinced the General that e should drop them ci 1 1 () if e didn't hear from them. And then I realied that I as C> 12 ;:: a fool hen I learned more about the order of battle -- the Q. 13 LIJ manner in hich the VC operated. 14 Do you ant me to summarie this? (f) LIJ...J Q. Yes, sir...: A. Well, I just say here -- I'd rather read it Q. All right. A. "Joseph Alsop, the journalist, ho as regarded at that time as something of an expert on things military, became an ardent spokesman for one disgruntled field forces commander. Alsop rote sarcastically in his byline stories that appeared in the military nespaper Stars and Stripes of 'phantom' '--" " "-----"--' , r

38 -----_.._-_.. _--,._._-_.._-- ---""-----,-----"- 331 on 8 regiments that the Saigon headquarters people insisted on keeping 2 in the order of battle. The commanders in the field, Mr. 3 Alsop rasped, kne a lot more about the enemy than the Saigon 4 brass did because the field commanders ere the ones ho had 5 met the enemy on the field of battle. Mr. Alsop's sarcasm about 6 the phantom regiments caused me a bit of indigestion at times, 7 but eventually all the phantoms came back to roost in that..;. particular field commander's backyard. It as that kind of on on 9 <..i order of battle problem." 1 o, as Joseph Alsop, in effect, accusing the military ci 11 of overstating the sie of the enemy? tl (!l 12 A. It appeared to me from ritings that he as accusing ;::: Q. 13 the military -- he as accusing MACV of overstating it in W 14 carrying regiments that in his opinion no longer existed. Cf) c...j «But as I point out here, those regiments did reappear. You didn't believe that for a hile though? A. For the first fe months there, I even subscribed to this vie that e should take them out of the order of battle, 2 21 ut I changed my mind and I ent back to General McChristian and I told him I made a mistake. Q. o, you relate a story in here -- hich I think you mentioned earlier -- concerning General Westmoreland giving a

39 -' '--.-"----r" figure for the infiltrators that as too high. 2 A. Yes, sir. I think I described that yesterday. 3 Q. Do you recall hen you first kne about that incident? 4 A. When I first kne about it? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. Well, it happened, as best I recall, in the spring 7 of 66. That's the best I recall that that incident occurred. 8 Q. OW, I'd just like you to read -- and if you ant to 9 revie it, that's fine ith me -- but the top of Page 41 here c.;i o u (!) : : Z o (J) : o...j < you recount ho the incident ended. If you could read that into the record. A. "The total figure as several thousand larger than hat e had before but several thousand short of the figure General Westmoreland reportedly had stated. The General -- this is General McChristian I'm talking about here -- "said e'll go ith hat e've got; nothing more; nothing less." Q. Was that the figure you ent ith? A. The ne figure that e came up ith is the ne figure that e ent ith. Q. Did you get any complaints from General Westmoreland? A. o. I never heard of it again. ever heard of it again.

40 Q. Did you think that going ith the figure you ould go ith ould embarass General Westmoreland? A. I figured that as General McChristian's and General Westmoreland's problem. I laid it on General McChristian's desk; I briefed it to him; I shoed him -- I described and shoed him examples of various background; I shoed him the 7 methodology e used; I told him ho e ere able to come up..;, ith these other figures; the documentation e had for it, and 9 this is the result. 1 After he said that, this as an indication to me that 11 he approved this ne figure, and that figure actually as f..) Cl 12 subsequently accepted into the order of battle. >= Cl. 13 From that point on it as a dead issue ith me. I 14 Cf) never heard anything else about it. Q. Why didn't you follo the same procedure in 67?..J..: A. In hat manner do you say follo it? Q. Well, in 66 hen General Westmoreland gave an estimate for a figure that you felt as too high, you stuck ith the accurate figure, even though it might embarass General Westmorelan 2 Why didn't you do that in 67? 71 A. I briefed this to General McChristian. General McChristian accepted the fgure. I briefed the other figures -: ,

41 I -; , , I to General Westmoreland and General Westmoreland did not accept 2 them. 3 Q. Why didn't you go directly to your superior, the J2, 4 hoever he as, and do exactly hat you did in 66? 5 A. It asn't the same situation at all. I had briefed 6 these figures to General Westmoreland. General Westmoreland 7 Of) ould have thought -- my superiors, I'm sure, ould have thought... M 8 it very presumptious of me. This as just at the time that Of) Of) " 9 General McChristian as leaving; General Davidson as coming in, -.; 1 and the best I recall this thing just lay there in a state ci (.) 11 of hiatus for a hile. And then came the development of the " ;:: 12 spread and this eventual realiation that this is the Command II:.. 13 position that's not going to be exceeded. I don't think it's II: 14 the same situation at all. (fj II: Cl...J «Q. Well, don't you think that as a decision that should have been made by the J2, hether to confront General Westmoreland ith the higher figure or do something else? In 67? A. In 67? Q. Yes. 2 A. I briefed the figures to General Westmoreland directly. 71 Q. Don't you think it as a decision of the J2 as to ho they should be handled once General Westmoreland expressed

42 -l -" -' , ----r' -'-'-----, -- " 335 concern over the higher numbers? 2 A. The J2 has his line of communication to the General. 3 I don't kno hat his communication as to General Westmoreland. 4 I as out of it at that point. When I left the room, 5 I as out of the picture. 6 Q. Don't you think you should have done anything you 7 on did ith the numbers in conjunction and orking closely ith the.. <'? 8 J2? on on 9 A. I don't see any reason hy I should have done differentl c;i 1 than hat I did. I aited for instructions, and I folloed the 11 () instructions that came don to me -- that ere given to me. (!) 12 >= o, at the bottom of Page 51 you refer to certain c. 13 documents. I'll just read the sentence to you and see if you Z 14 ant to explain that in any ay. CJ)..J "The documents ere old and ere typical of the «Viet Cong bureaucratic tendency for bragging and exhorting." 2 71 If you ant to look at the context (Witness reads document.) Q. Is that something that you subscribed to as a general proposition? A. Let me re-read the paragraph here to get the context. (Witness reads document.)

43 .-' "-- r'.-.-'--" r A. This "someone in CIA" as Sam Adams, of course. 2 Q. Okay, you've identified somebody from CIA. 3 A. o, here do you ant me to start? 4 Q. The reference here -- (Pointing to document.) 5 I'm interested in that one sentence, although you can 6 continue reading. 7 A. Which sentence?.. 8 Q. "The documents ere OJ 9 ci 11 C,) <.!l 12 ;:: - 13 W 14 en Cl...J <t A. "The documents ere old and typical of the Viet Cong 1 bureaucratic tendency for bragging and exhorting." Yes. To a certain extent they did do a lot of bragging. Some of the information turned out to be usable, but there as propaganda in the documents. And e ere alays on the lookout for hat as propaganda and hen they ere actually telling us hat they've got got. They didn't intend to tell us, of course. MR. DORSE: Off the record. or saying hat they've 2 71 (A very brief recess as taken.) MR. DORSE: On the record. BY MR. DORSE: (Resuming) Q. Colonel Hakins, I'll just sho you Page 56 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 71, and there is a sentence here hich I

44 r' r "."" think you testified about but I just ant to make sure. And 2 the sentence is about three-quarters don. 3 A. "The fact that the CICV analysts orked ithout 4 benefit of communications intelligence." Yes, sir. 5 Q. Just continue. 6 A. "Made the task of catching up even sloer and more 7 arduous. Through the laborious process of backtracking on the 8 locations of every knon regiment, extending through a period ci ci (.) Cl Z ILl Z o (/) ILl C...J « of seven months, the CICV analysts by the fall of 66 had placed in the hands of the communications intelligence analysts a tool hich permitted the latter to pinpoint the current disposition of these units ith telling accuracy." Q. And the reference to the CICV analysts orking ithout the benefit of communications intelligence is hat you explained before? A. Yes. For the most part. As I recall, there ere certain people out there that ere cleared for comment, but I don't kno ho they ere. The Chief of -- my counterpart in the Order of Battle Branch out there, the Chief of that, as I understood, he as cleared for it. Some other people ere cleared. On that level?