 |
Readers' CornerOmbudsman Dave Mazzarella answers reader questions about Stars and Stripes. |
Recommended Reading, Part II
Posted August 8th, 2007 by Dave MazzarellaIn an earlier blog entry, I started a new feature, called "Recommended Reading," and said it would highlight articles I especially liked. I'm making a recommendation again today, but not because of any article's brilliance. I'm suggesting you read about the latest twist in the saga of the "Baghdad Diarist." He is the GI who, using a pseudonym, wrote an article for the liberal New Republic magazine describing petty cruelties he said were committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Conservatives claimed the tales were made up. The magazine said it had confirmed them. Yesterday, the Army stated categorically that it had conducted its own investigation and found the writer's accounts false.
The saga points to a few things. It spotlights the supercharged political atmosphere that has grown up around the war. Who would have thought a magazine article about the supposed warped antics of a few GIs would have caused such a row? (A measure, incidentally, of the power of the press -- the magazine article -- and the growing power of the Internet; the attacks on the article came mainly online.)
Also underscored is the difficulty in discerning the truth when both sides in an argument refuse to openly support their positions with details of what they've learned. In the articles below, you'll see that the Army won't say how it determined the magazine writer's stories were false. That leaves its findings open to question. The magazine didn't do any better, just saying it had interviewed some unnamed soldiers who allegedly corroborated the article's contents.
Here are the links to a couple of versions of the story. You be the judge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/washington/08diarist.html
Beauchamp's Credibility
After reading The New Republic's "A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp" (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070730&s=editorial080207), I find their side of the story quite plausible. You rightly pointed out "the difficulty in discerning the truth when both sides in an argument refuse to openly support their positions,” but it is understandable that TNR won't reveal the other witness's names because this would surely bring them into disfavor with their leadership and other members of their unit.
What is interesting is why anyone would find Beauchamp's stories so hard to believe. He describes making fun of a disfigured woman, playing with skulls, and running over dogs with a Bradley; not exactly huge atrocities. But if they are true, then they, along with the documented bigger atrocities in this war, show us that some of our soldiers don't have the "moral compass" to effectively engage in their mission in a way that will "win the peace." (And that is the only way we will win). Army leadership has failed to instill professional discipline into these soldiers. The lesson for our military, particularly to the Army, is that there is a need to emphasize humanity, respect, and compassion for those people who we are supposed to be allied with. Indeed we need to instill that moral compass into our soldiers and their leaders.
Beauchamp had the courage to raise his hand and say that he did these things too. I think that takes courage and it also gives credibility to his stories.
Why do I get the distinct feeling...
..that Jetx has never served or heard a shot fired in anger? Beauchamp was just another little person who wanted his five minutes of fame and got used by the same kind of liberals who were all too eager to accommodate another loose screw we have to suffer in the media, Cindy Sheehan.
Beauchamp further admitted his stories were inaccurate and the Army's investigation confirmed it. And what do you expect to be "discerned" when you reference the NYT and the Washington Post, both prominent liberal mouthpieces?
Why Do You Have To Question...
...my credibility Mr Hamilton? Because I find Beachamp's story plausible? In fact I served for a very long time Sir. And I had the unfotunate experince to work with the Army both CONUS and OCONUS. From my own expereince I find the accusations of "petty cruelties" very believable. In that very AOR the Army couldn't control the trend of sexual assaults against female service members, and I had to order my females to pair-up at night for safety. And have you not seen the video footage of the Army guys driving their humvee through the streets hitting other traffic for fun? Or the video of the Army guys cruelly teasing young children who are chasing their vehicle for water? It's not that far of a stretch to what Beauchamp says he saw. And by the way, he never recanted. No DoD official would go on record saying that.
Like I said, "What is interesting is why anyone would find Beauchamp's stories so hard to believe." That means you Mr Hamilton. Are you that politcally polarized you can't judge the plausability of a story on it's own merit? Perhaps you should step out of the partisan fog Sir, and stop regurgitating those tired rants against "liberals" and "the mainstream media." After all, they aren't the ones who got us into this mess. They just report the facts and testimony as best they can.