News Brief, My News Brief Beat Up Your Honor Student Edition
Joshua Foust on Aug 17 2007 at 1:45 am | Filed under: Culture, Environment, Foreign affairs, Military Matters, Notes on the war
Defense
- Phillip Carter has some choice things to say of the Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair: “Anyone who finds Beauchamp’s story incredible merely because it’s upsetting has no idea what war can do… How, then, should journalists tell the story of what happens in wartime? At best, the American public is getting a filtered picture of the battlefield today, and at worst, it’s getting garbage from both sides of the aisle. The American public needs to know the truth about the wars it sends its sons and daughters to fight — even when it’s ugly.” Why, yes, I agree with this.
- Calling Sherlock Holmes: Chinese missiles might target U.S. satellites? Who else might they target? Who else relies on space assets nearly as much, and insists on being hostile toward them?
- Three MRAPs down, 8 to go. Which will get the honored duty of proving just how big insurgents can build EFPs? Stay tuned, I suppose.
- Here’s an interesting big idea: the utilization of noöpolitik in statecraft. Basically a tarted-up form of social engineering, noöpolitik would involve “the role of informational soft power in expressing ideas, values, norms, and ethics through all manner of media.” The authors hold it up in contrast to realpolitik, which is concerned with interstate relations—surely an outdated idea if ever there were one. I must dig into this later.
Around the World
- Self-pimping: in case you missed it, I wrote three big-ish posts yesterday, one following up on the sloppy logic in the right-o-sphere that contends China’s workers in Pakistan are being attacked because of China’s campaign against the Uighurs, one on what I see as a looming tectonic shift in Central Asian geopolitics, and one on how Barrack Obama was actually fairly right and non-controversial in his statements on the misuses of U.S. air power in Afghanistan.
- Interesting, too, is this take on why the political situation in Afghanistan is faltering. The author chalks it up to a fundamental (and deliberate, which is more interesting and worrisome) misunderstanding of “local political dynamics, especially bypassing the Afghan tribal system with its driving force within the Pashtun majority in the country.” Now, I’m no expert on Pashtunwali, but Afghanistanica made the very strong case back in June that it really isn’t as vicious, or necessarily all-powerful, as many non-Pashtuns seem to assume. Of course, the exclusion of Pashtuns from the central government is indeed a major issue (that has interesting echoes of the ethnic situation in Iraq), but I don’t think it matters that much. At least, not if you base your ideas of what policies might be the most useful from what people are actually saying, in the press and in the villages.
- Speaking of which, the Washington Post ran a fantastic op-ed on the dangers of modern day COIN, and how our much-vaunted overwhelming force doctrine doesn’t really play nicely in a modern insurgency. To summarize in relation to my other complaints about policy in Afghanistan, “Reconstruction funds can shape the battlefield as surely as bombs.” Indeed they can. It is telling to contrast this article with a look at the latest secret torture prison in the country, and why and how those sorts of things will slowly unravel our efforts to rebuild the country.
- “I like dogs, fishing, poisoning dissidents, and long walks on the beach.” What’s that? Why, it’s Vladimir Putin’s Craigslist ad, where he trolls for dirty, meaningless gay sex like the rest of humanity. As a commenter noted: “what, no Vlad the Impaler jokes?”
Back at Home
- I’d join in on the indie-bashing, but I think I’ve done enough self-hating this year, don’t you think?
- The complete sham of carbon credits, or, as I like to call them, “transferring the burden of conservation from the rich to the poor.”
- Argh, strung out and waiting for Saturday…
Then Phillip Carter is a Grade-A Ass. What part of “Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a liar” is so confusing to y’all? His stories had nothing to do with “what happens in wartime” because THEY WERE FANTASIES. And who exactly is denying that bad things happen in war? Go ahead and read any and/or all of the Beauchamp takedowns and find me just one that makes such a claim. You can’t do it, because not one single blogger made that claim.
Seriously, why can’t y’all just face the arguments made instead invented new ones out of whole cloth? It’s getting beyond pathetic at this point.
Why don’t you read the whole of what Carter said before leaping to conclusions about his character? The first paragraph Carter describes Beauchamp breaking a soldier’s code when he wrote what he did… and that was on the assumption it was true. Anyway, here are some other choice quotes from Carter’s op-ed:
I have yet to read an actual “take down” that doesn’t rely on similarly anonymous sources, or is anything more than a soldier blithely declaring that Americans just don’t do this sort of thing. Yes, the Kuwait gaffe is a critical error in his narratives, and it destroys his third dispatch. But the rest? Some of it seems unlikely, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s lied—and the Army simply declaring an investigation revealed as much doesn’t cut it for me. They have a vested interest in this too.
Gee, for someone so hyper-aware of how having a pre-set narrative can drastically distort how one portrays facts, you sure are quick off the starting line.
I remember reading Carter’s take and finding it a bit frustrating. Sometimes he is an ass, if a pretty well informed one. Pretty essential reading for me.
That there is some underlying meta-truth about war affecting some people is not what the blogger complaints are. It is that the particular things described didn’t happen. Not because we can’t imagine a soldier, some sick puppy, doing such things, but that someone had to make things up (and here I don’t believe Carter, I think his friends did question them, they just didn’t think they couldn’t happen. The way Beauchamp claims they happened just didn’t add up) because they are so rare that he had no actual knowledge of the events. The narrative implied such things were common. That this is the real face of this war.
Why is that important? Because literary inventions under the excuse of “fake but accurate” distort reality more than it already is, and to an obvious prejudicial end. A good question is whether such insensitive behavior is more common there than back here? My impression is no it isn’t. Think of the cruel and insensitive treatment you have seen and experienced in your own life. To print such stories, fictional stories as real, expresses something about the need to have war be what we want it to be, and in this case, it is obvious what Beauchamp wants it to be, and of what Foer is a willing buyer and disseminator.
No, they argued that such things didn’t add up given the way they were portrayed. In fact, the ones I read pointed out that even worse things do happen, only that these didn’t. It is really the same kind of thing that has done in the poseurs claiming they committed atrocities. The millbloggers spotted all kinds of things that didn’t fit. They may have doubted the stories, as Carter doubted the story about the young woman, but what chapped them was the intent, which was to make things up to smear troops as a whole, to claim that war was making people act in the fashion described. It also turns the soldier into a passive victim (which is explicitly what Beauchamp was arguing) rather than as a soldier, doing his duty, and some few who are in fact sadists or whatever character trait that disgusts us. It throws out the excuse, “the war made me do it.” Yet back to my earlier question, what is the excuse back here? Soldiers naturally resent the idea that they are just stick figures manipulated by war and others and their own choices don’t matter. Beauchamp’s fiction, some pale attempt to emulate Camus, offends on all those levels.
It was obviously fiction, in its tone, its attempt to portray the author as something he is most decidedly not. And who would believe anyone who was what he claims to be in those essays? If he is that cold and empathy lacking character, why would we trust his story? If he isn’t, and it is a mere literary device, then we know we can’t trust him as well. Why didn’t that occur to Foer? I think it did, but if it didn’t, why not? Forget the incidents, the characters reactions were disturbing. Since he knew Beauchamp, why did it not occur to him that the man portrayed in those stories is either fictional and/or not to be trusted?
As fiction it is fine, as a claim of what actually happened it is a disgusting lie, even if some details end up being true. That is true of most lies. Some parts usually are true. Carter wants to slide past all that to make his own points, rather than to address what the story is really about. I don’t know if that makes Carter an ass, but it certainly means he is being one here to ignore all the disturbing issues of this story to veterans and act as if those can be ignored for his own purposes. The psychological insult brings up all the lies and exaggerations about Vietnam vets, a set of lies that has caused many a great deal of pain. To act as if Beauchamp, who has been proven to have lied about these, deserves some beyond a shadow of doubt proof on the veracity of the rest of the story when so many legitimate points have been made about why they don’t ring true is to confuse who has hurled the charges. He and the New Republic did, they are the one’s to be held to a high burden of proof before we take proven liars seriously.
Lance, that was eloquently put.
You’re right, I should have read the whole thing. I would have realized just how uncharacteristic of the article your little excerpt was. In fact, I had read a bunch of already, but I didn’t recognize it from the way you quoted it. And frankly, none of that changes the fact that the posts that exposed the Beauchamp mess were completely mischaracterized by Carter.
Funny how you didn’t excerpt any of those to agree with.
Then you are asolutely full of shit, Josh. You haven’t read any take downs, have you? It’s pretty obvious that you glossed over much of my last post on the subject, and didn’t follow any of the links. Not one of those “take downs” was from an anonymous soldier, and some were even from his own platoon, as well as his CO. Further more, not one of those posts/emails/communications declared that “Americans just don’t do this sort of thing” but instead that soldiers don’t these sorts of things with impunity. That’s a big difference.
Then you’re not looking. “Square-backed” cartridges (there’s no such thing)? Only Iraqi police have Glocks (demonstrably untrue)? Changing flat tires in waist-deep sewage (all tired vehicles have run-flats, and noone has been able to verify a “waist-deep” river of sewage running through the streets of Baghdad)? Sorry, but he made that stuff up too.
Well you’ll just have to flesh that out for me. You don’t trust the Army, but Franklin Foer, TNR and Beauchamp are all beyond reproach?
Gee, it seems like your post and reaction to my criticism pretty much proves my point.
Michael, going back to reading what has actually been written, my point was that I’m totally skeptical of what exactly is going on. Beauchamp is a lightning rod for both the pro- and anti-war sides of this argument. Calling me full of shit for being unsure of which groups of investigations and testimonies to trust doesn’t really resolve the ultimate point of Carter’s article, which was deep skepticism of what everyone on both sides has said actually took place.
My point, Josh, was that neither you nor Carter knows what they are talking about. How can you be so confused about whom to believe if you haven’t actually read the critiques? BTW, that’s what I’m calling you full of shit on; i.e. that you’ve read the “take downs, whne it’s obvious you haven’t.
The articles challenging Beauchamp were based on factual analysis by milbloggers, and reports from soldiers in Iraq, including those serving directly with Beauchamp himself. Complaining about people being upset because “our boys don’t do such things” would make more sense then, if that senitiment had actually been expressed. The bottom line is that the Beauchamp story was of initial interest to the military cohort, and to many on the right, because STB unfairly impugned the integrity of those with whom he is serving with stories that just seemed to be off. It’s become a much bigger deal because the anti-war contingent has collectively put its fingers in its ears while screaming “lalalalala” in between hurling insults at the rightosphere for being “hysterical” about the whole affair.
While I think the charges of hysteria are more than a bit overblown, when one has to work so hard to have one’s criticisms taken at face value, and to have them weighed on the merits alone, is it any wonder than some may get a little hysterical? And then comes along the Cathy Youngs and Phillip Carters to play Solomon in attempting to appear reasonable by scolding both sides. What makes that so infuriating is that is abundantly clear that neither one of them knows what they’re condemning. They’ve simply waded into the brouhaha, pronounced themselves the reasonable ones, and sent everyone to their rooms. Essentially, they’re too lazy or disinterested to figure out what’s going on, so they declare everyone in the wrong. Meanwhile, Foer and TNR satisfy themselves that their own troubles are merely the product of “wingnut” partisanship, and those who challenged the stories are left talking amongst themselves, hoping that someday the actual truth of a matter will be what decides the issue, and not someone’s politics.
BTW, you may want to take a look at this piece by Richard Miniter which includes interviews with STB’s German ex-fiance and the TNR whistleblower. It is enlightening.
I think the questions about TNR’s fact checking process are totally legit (which were raised 10 years ago by Stephen Glass), and that criticism is right on. But the questions about Beauchamp’s character, filtered through his jilted ex-fiancee? That’s a bit much. Again, I’m not saying it’s untrue, and Miniter says as much, but he constructs his entire narrative based on hearsay from people with an agenda. From what I’ve seen, I see no reason to disbelieve he’s a sociopathic attention whore, but digging into his romantic failures (and neglecting to mention that, rather than being petulant in not returning press calls, he has been gagged by his superior officer) is going a bit beyond what is necessary. That piece doesn’t strike me as an investigation of what happened, but a personal hit piece.
Wrong. STB’s been allowed to call or write to whomever he wants for some time now. He just doesn’t want to. From Bill Roggio in Iraq:
I recently emailed Col. Steve Boylan asking for whatever information he could provide regarding the status of the investigation of Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Here is his response:
I don’t see it that way at all. His character was pretty much exploded early on. As I wrote earlier, either his character (which was supposed to stay anonymous) was real, as in him, and therefore his character is obviously pretty terrible, or he is a liar. I see a lot of truth in both ways of looking at it. Whatever the case his character is pretty much toast. His ex-girlfriends point of view may be biased, but it tracks with what people thought even before his identity was revealed. His story and character begged to be seen as a writer wanting to find some “authentic” experience to build a character around. Now upon reading his blog he pretty much indicts himself on that charge.
As for not being able to hear from him, well, that story comes only from the TNR. No other evidence exists to back that up.
Interestingly, the bad boy authentic experience he was looking for, the tragic fallen figure to place him amongst so many literary heroes now exists. The opportunity for lacerating internal dissection and cold reactions to it should provide ample literary fodder to go along with his service. No doubt, like so many others including Joe Wilson (or on the other side J. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North) proven liars will still be heroes not despite their lies and faults (something which luckily all of us can benefit from) but because of them. The lies are the truth no matter what, or in some meta realm if they can’t stomach believing them completely, and thus they are part of the cause. The young man may end up rich and admired, a rebel, a literary version of the romantic Che’.
No, Lance, I agree with you that early on he was exposed as an amoral attention whore (I stated as much on my blog). I was just talking about Miniter’s take, which seemed to rely too much on jilted lovers to impugn the guy’s person. His own blog, his own horrendously bad writing does that well enough, I think.
And like you, I’m saddened he’ll still get a lucrative book deal out of this and go on the speaking circuit… like the other proven liars of the left and right who go on to prosperity. It is revolting to me.
On this, at least, I think we can all agree.
As far as the Miniter piece, I didn’t think it was anything dispositive so much as an interesting look at the man behind the myths. Was it a hit piece? In part I guess. It still gives you a better survey of the landscape than you had before.
The stuff about McGee was more of an indictment of TNR though (why hasn’t anyone else been fired, and why has McGee been muzzled by TNR lawyers? I’d be surprised if he had an employment contract, much less a confidentiality agreement). And the left’s reaction to him is pretty disgusting, as we pointed out last Fall during the Foley-gate episode.