L'affaire Beauchamp: The sound of many knees jerking
Cathy Young | August 6, 2007, 9:02am
The Scott Thomas Beauchamp brouhaha, if you have been following it, is a proverbial tempest in a teapot. The claims Beauchamp made (as the barely pseudonymous "Scott Thomas") in his "Baghdad Diarist" New Republic article about American soldiers behaving badly are fairly trivial; the war in Iraq does not stand or fall on their truthfulness. Nonetheless, the blogosphere's reaction to the story has been sharply divided along pro-war and anti-war lines almost from the start, and this across-the-board knee-jerk response is, perhaps, the most interesting (if depressing) aspect of the entire affair.
Right meme: it's a liberal media conspiracy to besmirch the war effort by encouraging a leftist literary poseur to publish fictional or embellished stories painting soldiers as depraved sociopaths. Left meme: it's a right-wing cyber-lynching of a soldier telling the ugly truth about the war. TNR's announcement that it has confirmed the story to its satisfaction has not changed any minds.
There is no question that some of the right-wing rhetoric directed at Beauchamp and at TNR was indeed shockingly ugly, violent, and paranoid (Beauchamp was a leftist mole who had deliberately infiltrated the military in order to destroy it from within!). But the defense of Beauchamp from the anti-war camp seems misguided. For one thing, the one detail that TNR admits he got wrong -- the incident which opens his piece, in which Beauchamp and a buddy publicly mock a woman disfigured in an IED explosion, did not occur in Iraq but in Kuwait while awaiting deployment -- is not a triviality. After all, with the correct location, the anecdote would not have fit into Beauchamp's narrative. His point was that war messes up one's moral compass, including his own. If this happened before he was in a war zone, there goes the moral of the story.
Far less attention has been paid to the curious matter of Beauchamp's first diarist piece, "War Bonds". In it, Beauchamp chats with a friendly Iraqi boy while changing a flat tire, only to find out the next day that the boy, who called himself "James Bond," had his tongue cut out by insurgents for talking to Americans. This horrifying tale abounds in improbabilities -- above all, the fact that a month or two later Beauchamp sees the same kid back on the same streets, hanging around Americans and waiting for handouts, smiling happily and sprinting after a soccer ball. His spirits are apparently undampened by the mutilation or by fear of further reprisals, and his family has not thought to keep him off the streets, or maybe try to get out of that neighborhood. None of it rings true -- though I'm certainly not denying that the insurgents could have done such a thing. (For more analysis of that piece, see my post at The Y-Files.) Of course, no one questioned that story because no one has a political or emotional stake in disproving atrocities by insurgents.
So yes, I think there are good reasons to question Beauchamp's accuracy, and neither TNR nor liberal bloggers are doing themselves any favors by coming uncritically to his defense. But conservative bloggers aren't covering themselves in glory either when they stridenly insist that TNR gave Beauchamp a platform in a nefarious plot to smear and slander the troops. TNR is not some far-left rag that revels in spitting on American soldiers; it is a centrist magazine that initially supported the war in Iraq. Indeed, while I think the story of the boy who had his tongue cut out raises further doubts about Beauchamp's credibility, it also points to the aburdity of claims that TNR editors were eager to publish Beauchamp because his writings put U.S. troops in Iraq in a bad light. I think Beauchamp wanted to write gritty, vivid, human-interest-rich accounts of the horrors of war, and TNR wanted to publish them.
I also think Andrew Sullivan probably has a point when he speculates that one reason for the Beauchamp brouhaha is that, unable to discredit the real bad news coming from Iraq, war supporters have targeted the Beauchamp story as a weak link. There are also far too many on the right who do not want to hear, or to accept, any bad news about the conduct or the morale of American troops.
But none of that changes the fact that a magazine like TNR owes its readers real accuracy, not just a "close enough." Truth in journalism matters; that's why the Beauchamp saga is not entirely trivial. And even those who are rightly disgusted by the hysteria about "slandering the troops" should not overlook this fact. In the end, Beauchamp and his persecutors may well deserve each other.
Extended version cross-posted at The Y-Files.
Guy Montag | August 6, 2007, 12:13pm | #
Speaking of "moral compasses", I am convinced that
The New Republic has not given a damn about facts for so long that they do not realize how inaccuracies can actually be different from each other and have different impacts. Impact like Cathy has already covered here is waived away by the editors at TNR as just a minor detail.
Cathy, glad you covered 'story' 1, I had not paid it any attention but will check it out now, thanks to you.
In the "Shock Troops" story, then PFC Beauchamp (he has been serving in his second-award of PV2 since before these stories were published) wrote about a Bradley IFV incident he claimed to hear on the radio, IIRC, and additional details by the alleged driver.
From PV2 Bauchamp's other statements about his mechanical aptitude, I can see where a Bradley driver could tell the guy a tall tale and he repete it as fact. No track commander is letting his driver bust through concrete barracades and buildings. That is a good way to break the final drive and be stuck in a hostile area. TNR did not bother to reveal what their 'research' found on this item.
They also failed to reveal who the Public Affairs Officers that they "attempted" to contact were either. Other members of the media have not had much trouble contacting the PAOs and TNR could easily reveal who they contacted and who did not return messages.
Actually, there is not telling what the original stories were and how much fairbanksing (google is your friend) went into the final product.
As for the IED victim, the only thing revealed was that the woman was scarred and then PFC Beauchamp began spouting off
about IED victims. Even if the woman does exist, there is no telling how much exaggeration there is to her appearance or what caused her injury.
The point about TNR being generally pro-Iraqi Freedom and supporting the Global War on Terror is somehting that the Rightleaning 'bloggers don't seem to grasp. Then again, the people who point this out tend to miss the fact that TNR seems to believe that the wrong political party is running the war. They certainly are not centrist, they are pro-liberation Leftists (a rare find, too bad they are so sloppy).
Another bad aspect to this affair is that this Private happens to be married to one of the only decent writers at TNR, Elspeth Reeve. Odd how that happens, but I hope she continues to do well.
All in all, I don't believe anything from PV2 Beauchamp just from looking at the nonsense in his online journal. This whole deal sounds like he heard and made things up, passed them along to the editors at TNR who in turn made more things up while trying to make a readable story out of PV2 Beauchamp's notes back to the office.
It is odd how TNR is silent about firing a staffer for confirming that PV2 Beauchamp is actually married to Elspeth Reeve, even though the editors reveled the relationship within a day or two.
The "investigation" post by TNR reads like a child trying to convince parents that an elephant stepped on their broken toys.
All in all, that publication is nothing but bad fiction that the staff believes as fact and no fact will change that.
Guy Montag | August 8, 2007, 4:41pm | #
CW,
With statements like that, coming from someone who can not understand the simple statement:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims. - MAJ Steven F. Lamb, Deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad I can sort of see why you think that stupid attack on a reporter who disagrees with you "proves" your version.
Also, somehow, you take a "source close to the investigation" as being some Marine Reservist reporter who is standing near the investigation. Context is not that hard. Try it sometime.
Sounds like Mr. Foer actually uses your "logic" too, when he says the Army should provide him with information from their investigation.
If Mr. Foer believes PV2 Beauchamp then he has a criminal on his staff who engaged in sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming a soldier at the very least. He also has in his hands evidence of war crimes and violations of the UCMJ. He is coddling criminals who participated in crimes and people who witnessed crimes.
If anybody should be turning over evidence it is Foer to the US Army where it can be viewed in a public trial of the scum he protects.
However, if any of that were uncovered by the Army, there would be trial boards assembled as we sit here and type without the help of Mr. Foer.
Now, for you Mr. Wilson, run along with your little outing games and insinuating that gay/formerly gay folk can't be trusted to report or anything else. You bring a complete lack of evidence to this discussion and believe in the silliest fables. Continue your support of war criminals and their supporters too, if you like, and feel free to speak your mind so that the rest of us know what sort of person we are dealing with.
Charles Wilson | August 9, 2007, 5:52pm | #
Um, Guy? I've never insinuated that "gay/formerly gay folk can't be trusted to report or anything else." Nor have I "outed" anyone.
Matt Sanchez's sexual orientation isn't at issue here. He credibility is. Mr. Sanchez is a former (?) prostitute, and has a long track record of lying about that and other issues. He is not a credible source of information.
I suspect that
The Weekly Standard sourced is now-discredited "scoop" through Matt Sanchez. But my suspicions and a buck and a half will get you a tall coffee of the day somewhere.
As for the underlying issue of who's telling the truth, the Army, Pvt. Beauchamp, the wingnutosphere, or
The New Republic, I can't say. As with my suspicions about your buddy Matt Sanchez, I can only suspect and deduce.
I suspect that everything Beauchamp reported actually happened. I also suspect that he exaggerated his stories. You know, dramatic license and all that. I suspect that the Army doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, and that this is on purpose.
Their asking the soldiers in Beauchamp's unit whether these things happened is a knee-slapper. Come on, what soldier is going to be stupid enough to corroborate those stories and face prosecution, administrative sanctions, and a general shitstorm for it, as opposed to saying, "Nosir, I didn't see a thing?" How naive do you think people are?
I also suspect that TNR is covering its ass. Anyone with half a brain can see that Beauchamp's diary is exaggerated. Not that the wingnuts complained earlier this year when the target of his exaggerations were the insurgents, and not that anyone complained when wingnut bloggerista Michael Yon came up with a sale of cannibalistic al-Qaeda fighters.
What really matters here is the fervor with which the wingnutosphere has approached all of this. Beauchamp's stories were par for the course in wartime. They were sordid but not shocking or even very surprising. But, because they weren't wrapped in red, white and blue tinfoil, the wingnuts went crazy. Why?
I think it's because you and your crew are terribly frustrated over the ongoing American defeat in Iraq. You know you can't turn that around, so you take out your anger on some lowly private first class who failed to toe the propaganda line.
Love the way you people support the troops. And the tool of your support -- a Republican, evanglical Christian, porn acting, male prostitute -- well let's all just call Matt Sanchez a bit of comic relief in this otherwise ugly little story of wingnut rage.
Guy Montag | August 9, 2007, 9:49pm | #
Cathy,
EVERYTHING from "Shock Troops" is a UCMJ violation under 934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE. Why is Franklin Foer shielding war criminals, if he really believes the story as strongly as he says?
If you were submitting articles that were generally okay and then dropped a story on Nick where you participated in crimes and then Nick confirmed with your conspirators that, indeed, they helped you commit crimes, wouldn't Nick be morally obligated to forward the evidence to the proper authorities? Wouldn't it be silly of Nick to demand the authorities fork over their investigative documents to him so Dave and Radley could write another story about the investigation?
That is the latest that Mr. Foer is demanding.
BTW, the BAE Bradley Expert that TNR interviewed is
Mr. Doug Coffey and
he holds a differing opinion from what TNR "re-reported" in their 'investigation'.
CW,
It the extent that it is worth responding to you, I post the following:
Matt Sanchez's sexual orientation isn't at issue here.
Yet your only "criticism" of his work is that he did some gay porn.
I suspect that everything Beauchamp reported actually happened. I also suspect that he exaggerated his stories.
Nice! It happened, but it did not happen in any fashion described. Really nice! Do you have a BA degree?
Their asking the soldiers in Beauchamp's unit whether these things happened is a knee-slapper.
The "knee slapper" here is Mr. Foer asking the Army to hand over it's notes so that he can write another story, rather than TNR hand over their notes about the folks Mr. Foer swears committed these crimes. EVERYTHING from "Shock Troops" is a UCMJ violation under 934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE. Why is Mr. Foer shielding war criminals? He says that he believes the story. If he believes it then he is shielding grave desecrating, property destroying, sexual harassing criminals. Why are you supporting war criminals?
Actually, I really don't care what you think any more. You have shown your "greatness of thought" and if I want to hear any more of it I will venture to the Student Union and listen.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
