There's been a ton of new developments in the "Shocktroops" episode, which I introduced here a few days ago.

Basically, The New Republic - a center-left publication whose columnists have been generally opposed to the war in Iraq (or Kerryesquely for the war before they were against the war) - had published the writings of a pseudonymed soldier "Scott Thomas." In his writings titled "Shocktroops," the soldier had claimed witness to alleged unprofessional and unmoral behavior of fellow soldiers that included desecrations at an Iraqi mass grave site; using Bradley armored vehicles to run down structures and stray dogs; and openly mocking the injuries of a particularly scarred Iraqi woman.

After much pressure from bloggers, both those former and active military and those not, Scott Thomas has revealed himself as 24-year-old Scott Thomas Beauchamp, while The New Republic has decided to "re-report" ( i.e., actually bother fact checking) Beauchamp's accusations.

So the guy appears to really be a soldier, and his service is both noted and appreciated. However, we don't yet live in Pakistan or Egypt, where the militaries tell the citizens what to think, and thus Beauchamp isn't above legitimate criticism for his display of immaturity and careerism -- on the latter, by his own blog admission, Beauchamp states he joined the military "just to write a book." No doubt he'll get that deal. Maybe like John Kerry did in 1971, Beauchamp can go before Congress and spread noxious heresay disguised as fact. Proof isn't needed, just ears that are predisposed to believe the worst about our soldiers. Disgusting.

Nationally syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin has been all over this, as has Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard. And I'm borrowing their links often here.

First you need to read Beauchamp's tortured explanation:

My Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp
My, my, where does one begin.

It should first be noted that if Beauchamp indeed witness such things, especially the Iraqi mass grave, his duty would have been to report it to his superiors, not write about it for future career gains via a commentary magazine. If nothing else he's guilty of that.

And how does one logically complain that retorts to those writings "take[s] the time out of my already insane schedule" when he seems to have plenty of time to write for TNR in the first place!

Secondly, if there is "more controversy than [he] could ever have anticipated" and "confusion" over his writings he has only himself to blame -- he wrote it! It's either true or it's not. And if it is one best be prepared to offer evidence, which neither he nor TNR did.

Next, a great point by Michael Goldfarb of TWS: "That Beauchamp chose to reveal himself at this point also seems a bit disingenuous, since the military has already launched an investigation and, courtesy of [former Marine] JD Johannes, we'd already identified his unit four days ago. If we'd gotten that much information, it was only a matter of time before somebody besides his editors started asking him 'hard questions.'" Indeed, Johannes narrowed his identity down to about 100 men likely under the command of a single commanding officer, Captain Robby Johnson.

Most galling and self-deluding of all, with that ridiculous comment that "my comrades in arms have been called into question" Beauchamp portrays himself as a defender of those ONLY he himself insulted. One of Michelle Malkin's readers appropriately chides:

Say what? Lemme get this straight: This clown supposedly witnesses things that, if they were not observed by his chain of command, should've been brought to their attention immediately; instead he stabs his his "comrades in arms" between the shoulder blades by semi-anonymously writing to a lefty rag portray them in the worst possible light, the details of his accounts straining even the most generous sense of credulousness.

Then, when people who read has BS - and it still reeks of BS - come to the defense of his "comrades in arms," he whines that it is they who are questioning the character of his comrades?

That's rich.
Rich indeed.

I'm sure Beauchamp wishes that all those who dared question him were Chickenhawks, but from my research the vast majority of retort come from those actively serving our military, or those who have in the past. They are soldiers sweating and bleeding alongside Beauchamp, and certainly deserve to have their opinions heard. (Not to mention the Chickenhawk argument is nothing more than a petty ad hominem attack).

Those accused by John Kerry in 1971 never got that opportunity. But thanks to the Internet those accused by Beauchamp will.

Labels: antiwar loonies, Beauchamp, Iraq, Shocktroops

You'd think that The New Republic magazine would be extra careful about its reporting following the embarrassing discovery in 1998 that former TNR "reporter" Stephen Glass fabricated a whopping 27 articles.

But The New Republic editor Franklin Foer seems to be stubbornly sticking to a story by a reporter who claims to be a member of the US military. As summarized by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post here, TNR has published that a soldier named Scott Thomas has personally witnessed various atrocities and unprofessional conduct by US military personnel.

Claims include that the military is covering up "a mass graveyard of children's skeletons" and that US soldiers had desecrated the site by playing with the skulls. Thomas also told a story where "a soldier used his Bradley Fighting Vehicle to run over dogs."

The allegations by Thomas, whose true identity has yet to be revealed, sparked a heated response by bloggers everywhere, especially those of a military background who could immediately punch holes in Thomas' claims, including those from past reports. Indeed, from those retorts one could reasonably wager that Thomas isn't even military because of the sheer number of factual errors.

The Weekly Standard has a slew of round ups here (Also, here, here, here and here)

But perhaps one of the best responses comes from the 1st Infantry Division's (DRAGONS FOB Falcon) Public Affairs Officer, Major Kirk Luedeke:

As the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Officer- I can tell you unequivocally: there was NO mass grave discovered in this area of operations in conjunction with the building of a coalition outpost anytime in the past 12 months. None. Zero. Zip. And Frank Foer's assertions to the contrary, there is no way that his mystery soldier "Scott Thomas" can prove it. Foer can produce all of the alleged "eyewitnesses" he wants- unless these individuals are willing to back up their claims with real evidence, it's just so much garbage on a computer screen. Some people seem to forget that the burden of proof should be on the New Republic to back up his unsubstantiated claims and not the other way around...

I invite Mr. Foer and the New Republic to actually give us something to go on. Proof. Any kind will do - and something more than one anonymous soldier's claims and a nebulous "we've heard from others who can corroborate it," kinds of responses he provided Howard Kurtz. It's kind of hard to take these allegations seriously, when you're hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. Just about every Soldier these days has his or her own digital camera or video camera. Talk to anyone here- every unit down to squad level in our brigade is *required* to have a camera on every mission. It's all part of being prepared for such a discovery. Surely- there would be photos of the skulls and mass grave if it truly existed, would there not? The reason there isn't any photos, is because simply- the story isn't true...

I invite Scott Thomas to come by the Dragon PAO shop at FOB Falcon- Bldg 301, Rm 119, and I'd be happy to share the DoD media policy with him. While he's here, I'd love to discuss with him the mass graves, Bradley IFV dog hunting and IED burn victim he's so intent on stating is fact. If he can provide the evidence, I will gladly retract every word I've posted on the subject. If he's not willing to do that, then it kind of makes you wonder about his credibility, and that of the New Republic's doesn't it?
Indeed! Has the New Republic forgotten their own past?

Reporters are highly ideological - often to the point where they jeopardize their own careers by fabricating baseless allegations.

It happens far more often than you think. Recall Jayson Blair in 2003, fired by the New York Times for his "creative" reporting. CBS fired long-time anchor Dan Rather for accepting without question obviously manipulated documents disparaging of President Bush before the 2004 election. Recall both the LA Times and Reuters fired Michael Hiltzik and Adnan Hajj, respectively, for their separate attempts to photoshop photographs taken during the last Israel-Lebanon conflict.

The Wikipedia site, for example, is full of such examples, and those examples seem to have skyrocketed of late.

Why is that? Simple: the blogosphere - independent reporting - does the simple-stupid fact checking that gutless, unprofessional and ideologically-motivated newsroom editors don't do themselves.

Labels: Iraq, Journalism scandals, media bias, New Republic, Shocktroops