More on the dismal Scott Thomas Beauchamp charade. Turns out that after careful investigation of his claims, TNR was only able to disprove one element of his “vigorously fact checked” fantasies before the Army’s investigations into his misconduct “stymied” their own.
Stupid Army, investigating published claims of misconduct.
On one of the most shocking claims - that he and his friends, emotionally scarred by their wartime experiences mocked a disfigured female “soldier or contractor” - TNR was forced to admit that the “substantiated” event in fact occurred in Kuwait, prior to Beauchamp’s entry into Iraq.
The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.
“Mistake.” After he’d gone on record insisting that the story was true. Because warfare is so damned dehumanizing that it can get you at the end of a long flight from Germany before you ever see any actual combat.
It’s still probably not true that Bradley Fighting Vehicle drivers keep score on overrun mongrels. And it’s patently false that the Iraqi IP use “square backed” 9MM rounds. Or that Glocks are only to be found among the IP. It might be true that a heartless prick rumaged around in a children’s graveyard to wear a skull fragment as a kipo. But, speaking only for myself? I’m thinking he was a heartless prick even before the Army indoctrinated him on the law of armed conflict.
For some people none of this matters. The important thing is to realize that our troops are all doing awful things overseas, and it’s time to bring the sociopaths home. Ever last woman taunting, dog mauling, baby skull wearing one of ‘em. (Please see update below.)
This is the point where I usually heave up a sigh and regret that things have come to this. That a news magazine could take such unlikely, marginal trash and report on it as though it were representative. That people so invested in defeat and disgrace could continue to defend the tale even after having been made to understand its inconsistencies. Or that they could, even acknowledging that significant elements were fabricated out of whole cloth, continue to insist that, sure, these particular claims were false, but that the story was nevertheless “objectively true.” Fake but accurate in other words.
Not going to this time. My faith has been momentarily restored. Over at left/liberal Shakespeare’s Sister, Melissa McEwan confesses that this particular tissue of lies is not worth standing behind:
The New Republic has completed their investigation, and, aside from one error‚Äîan incident purported to have taken place in Iraq actually took place in Kuwait‚Äîeverything written by Scott Thomas Beauchamp has been corroborated by current and former soldiers, including five other members of Beauchamp’s company, forensic experts, and other war journalists, with assistance from Army Public Affairs officers.
So…all good, right?
Well, I’m about to say something that I expect will be deeply unpopular with a lot of Lefties. I’m not sure that error noted above is No Big Deal.
The incident in question was from the piece “Shock Troops,” which was about the effects of war on soldiers, how “the things we soldiers found funny were not, in fact, funny.” Beauchamp was recounting “how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall,” and the clear implication was that the horror of war had made them this callous, that Beauchamp had become the sort of person who cruelly mocks a disfigured woman, detailing her “severely scarred” face and “half-melted mouth,” because he’d been in the shit.
But‚Äîif the incident really took place in Kuwait, “prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq,” then can he honestly attribute it to war? Is there a qualitative difference between being in a war and on its edge? Knowing soldiers consider some assignments better than others even in the war theater itself, I have to imagine there is indeed a distinct difference between being in the war and, well, not.
That’s welcome, that. It means that we can maybe still agree about the importance of agreeing on the underlying facts of the matter even while vigorously debating the policies which ought to flow out of those facts. I view that as progress. On the other hand, this comment from one of the readers over there - a man who spent four years in the Navy during the mid-80’s? When the country was at peace?
Please remember that all military personnel are trained, from day 1, to regard ‘the enemy’ as non-human, if not sub-human. In my day, it was the Reds who were soulless, heartless, and ready to invade and enslave us all. Even if these soldiers had never seen a day of combat, they had been relentlessly trained NOT to respond to ‘the enemy’ in a humane, compassionate fashion.
I read that and suddenly I get tired again.
Update: In paragraph 7 above, I linked to a “Balloon Juice” post which sought to disparage those who questioned Beauchamp’s report. From that position I assumed a number of attitudes not in actual evidence. That was probably unfair to the poster, Professor John Cole, who it seems had nothing really important to say about something that many of us found rather interesting. Prof. Cole may be silly, trivial and snarling but it was improper for me to impute about him things that I could only infer.
My apologies. I’m better than this.
In other news, the Army’s investigation of Beauchamp has been completed and the Army found no corroborating evidence to support his claims.
Meanwhile, while we fiddle, 160,000 brave men and women continue to fight in the furnace.
For us.
62 responses so far ↓
1
SeniorD
// Aug 3, 2007 at 9:13 am
Mr. Cole,
This blog has a reputation, unlike Balloon Juice, for proper decorum, rational thought and constructive criticism. Calling the blog’s owner a ‘Hack’ runs perilously close to the edge.
The issue regarding Pvt. Beauchamp will be investigated by the appropriate Army command. Like Abu Ghraib, if his allegations prove valid (pictures would certainly help) the individuals involved will receive appropriate punishment.
Nightshift66’s comments are not representative of the Navy I served. They do, unfortunately, represent a style of thought common to many of the Leftist ilk; some of whom have and still do serve in the Navy.
You’re welcome to your own opinion and words. You do run the risk, on this blog, of having your words dissected, evaluated and repudiated with a vengence.
Your call.
2
lex
// Aug 3, 2007 at 9:14 am
People can click right through John, and formulate their own opinions. I used to read your work back in the day. Of late it, and your commentariat, have rendered the site less interesting, at least to me. So if your general theme has been that our deployed troops are not what Beauchamp has described them to be and that we ought to support their efforts, please forgive me drawing an opposite conclusion from this instance.
Your specific point, if I might summarize, was that the “right wing nuttosphere” spent all last week attempting to smear poor, honest Beauchamp because his testimony cracked the plaster saint image of deployed soldiers and that suddenly, absent any updates, they stopped. The implication being that, having been found to be nutter “hacks” they were too dishonorable to admit to their calumnies.
Oh, and there was also something in there about gay porn whose importance to the topic at hand did not spring out at me, but again, I haven’t been following you all that closely.
From thence a series of inferences are drawn - that these nutter hacks don’t really care about the Truth but instead twisted the poor kid up in knots because he had the audacity to get off message in a nationally prominent publication. Which the counter-argument would be - and I’m inferring once again - is that our presence over there is raising a generation of sociopaths. And, going from the specific to the general, what with all those square back 9mm Glock rounds littered about bearing the imprints of the eternally corrupt Iraqi Security Forces, means that it’s time to throw in the towel and bring ‘em home.
Perhaps that’s not what you were leading up to, and if so please accept my apologies. I mistook you for someone trying to make a serious point. It seems you were just using your razor sharp rhetorical skills - gay porn, etc - in an ongoing series of Quixotic tilts against right wing nutter hack windmills. Some private sport of your own. Which, have fun with that.
It’s a fool’s game though: The problem is that the experiences of many, many presently and formerly deployed military folks - including STB’s own first sergeant - is such that those critiques of the Beauchamp story have been found to be more accurate in significant details than the story itself.
3
badbob
// Aug 3, 2007 at 9:18 am
re “That a news magazine could take such unlikely, marginal trash and report on it as though it were representative.”
What?
They do it very day-24/7..Not JUST on the war either. What about Paris Hilton and all the rest of those Bimbettes/Bimbo’s like Anna Nicole, Lindsay whover, etc.
We’re simply living in a Fellini movie Lex.
b2
4
SeniorD
// Aug 3, 2007 at 9:20 am
Mark,
I, also, had a spirited time taking many pictures of Soviet ships at anchor off Libya. Gotta tell you some of the Kresta II cruisers gave me some concern. However, I found the Soviet sailors rather much like my shipmates, flashing ‘peace’ signs and waving.
I did have the opportunity to visit Split. Also got to walk around with a dark windbreaker in 90 degree weather while we had ship tours. Again, I found the Soviets and Yugoslav people more curious about America than fearful.
5
John Cole
// Aug 3, 2007 at 9:32 am
I have maintained all along that it is quite possible everything Beauchamp has said is false. It would not be at all out of the realm of possibility for him to be a fabulist- Jesse Macbeth, anyone?
What I have been watching, documenting, and mocking, however, is the completely and totally overblown reaction to what Beauchamp wrote. Do I think every soldier in theatre would do something like he has described? Of course not. If I did, I would be calling for a complete and total immediate withdrawal of troops.
Do I think it is quite possible that Beauchamp and his buddies did what he says they did? Of course all of the things he have stated are possible. I have driven bradley’s and M1’s while on active duty- you can run over a dog. Is it possible that some guys were jerks to a disfigured woman? Of course it is. Is it out of the realm of possibility that some jerk found a piece of a skull and wore it on his head like a yarmulke? Are we really going to argue this did not happen because it is not SOP?
What I find inexplicable is that people are freaking out about this stuff- if they did do it, is it the worst thing that has happened in Iraq? Of course not- there are documented and prosecuted cases of MUCH, MUCH worse. If they did do it, does it mean all soldiers are jerks? Of course not- it means that some kids in a warzone can act like, well, complete jackasses and sometimes be cruel. This is controversial? To whom?
Back to my point- claiming that the sum total of my opinion on this matter is ” to realize that our troops are all doing awful things overseas, and it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s time to bring the sociopaths home. Ever last woman taunting, dog mauling, baby skull wearing one of ?¢‚ǨÀúem” is to be a first rate hack.
Your rules of decorum be damned.
6
lex
// Aug 3, 2007 at 10:05 am
Didja ever cut a dog in half with your two-foot wide Brad track John? How big was that dog? How’d you see him over there in the driver’s hole? Did your friends all laugh about it and admire your skill?
Look - everyone knows that there have been war crimes in Iraq, things much worse than wearing baby skulls under your kevlar. The point is that there are genuine criminals whose conduct eventually gets punished. Americans understand criminals, and they understand that some folks leak through. But they want to believe in the humanity of their soldiers generally, and everything I know of them indicates that they both deserve that understanding from the people and that they need it.
What Beauchamp did with his falsities - his lies, John - is to open up the chest and sh!t in the heart of all the rest of them out there, to besmirch the battle buddies by his side by claiming for himself an unearned world weariness, that “been in the shit” thousand yard stare, a moral degradation that we were expected to believe was general - or else what was the point?
He admitted just enough evil to smear his comrades without rising to the level of actual criminality, he’s a modern day Oliver Stone. Bravo for him. Perhaps the movie will be better than the diary.
The questions that we asked ourselves was why would anyone write those things before even having seen any combat? Why would TNR see fit publish to publish them? The conclusion I have drawn is this: Having initially committed - honorably in my view - not to repeat the excesses of the Vietnam era anti-war left by smearing the reputation of those sent forward to fight it, today’s anti-war factions have realized that this is a losing strategy. It’s hard to energize the lumpen masses against the war when only 1% of them have any skin in the game and they’re all volunteers.
At first the anti-war folks were content to label soldiers as deluded “low class victims,” people without any life skills, people who “got stuck in Iraq.” But articulate, motivated middle American veterans refused such a label and it frankly didn’t sell.
So if these volunteers weren’t victims, what were they? War criminals? Yes, some - but then they get life sentences from the military for their crimes and therefore make both uncompelling choices as victims of The Man while also failing to serve as a general characterization of the rest of the force.
So what are we left with, what fable can an anti-war faction weave to withdraw support from the deployed forces, however pseudo-sympathetically? That we are creating a class of monsters merely by having them there. After all, it must be true, everyone knows it’s true - all they needed was a diarist.
And so one was found. Close at hand as it turns out. How very fortunate.
Other people - the right wing nuttosphere according to you (some of whom were apparently gay, whatever that has to do with anything) - saw through the ruse and objected. Apparently too many of them did by your lights. Critical John Cole mass was breached and the story became not the story but the story about the story. Like that even matters in the most trivial sense. Navel gazing bull, is all that is.
You know, we’re not writing Tolstoy here John. We’re all mostly reacting to the news of the day. Last week it was Beauchamp, this week Our Crumbling Infrastructure. But those soldiers are still out there sweating and fighting and dying John. For us.
They deserve better than Beauchamp’s fantasies, and I don’t care who points it out, how loudly or how often.
And you may label me a first rate hack to your heart’s content, brother - I will wear your contempt as a badge of honor.
7
John Cole
// Aug 3, 2007 at 10:25 am
You know, this would have been easier to type:
“I can completely dishonestly distort what you are saying because I
8
Casca
// Aug 3, 2007 at 10:25 am
Makin’ mock of uniforms, what guards you while you sleep is cheaper than those uniforms, and they’re starvation cheap.
This is not about the kernals of corn in the lefty TNR excrement. The story is that there are a thousand stories of heroism, ten-thousand stories of courage, and one-hundred-thousand stories of pathos, none of which the MSM sees fit to print or televise.
That some young men may have possibly behaved badly, in a matter which at it’s worst may be described as bad taste, not even a sin, let alone a crime. The crime and story is TNR’s attempt to tar a generation of warriors with a put-up job of fevered imaginings.
9
John Cole
// Aug 3, 2007 at 10:26 am
You know, this would have been easier to type:
“I can completely dishonestly distort what you are saying because I support the troops.”
Have a nice life.
10
John Cole
// Aug 3, 2007 at 10:29 am
Your spam filter thing is doing odd things.
At any rate, I find it ironic that in a post lamenting fake but accurate things you have completely distorted my position and then justified it because you so feel so strongly about the troops.
You should apply for a job at World Net Daily or the NRO. Seriously.
11
lex
// Aug 3, 2007 at 10:37 am
Spam filter fixed.
re:“Have a nice life.”
Back atcha, and enjoy the company you keep.
12
SeniorD
// Aug 3, 2007 at 10:38 am
Cap’n
I do so wish I could stay and watch the fireworks. However, ’tis MS Tour Weekend and I’ve some miles to ride.
At present I score the match as 2 for you and 0 for Mr. Cole. Sad how some folks just stoop to immature drivel.
I’ll check in when I get back.
13
David Curp
// Aug 3, 2007 at 10:44 am
Dear Lex,
I want to apologies on behalf of my profession for Prof. Cole. Some of us are better than his post indicates. On the left and the right you will find honorable, thoughtful people who, unlike Prof. Cole, don’t sling around insults, find extremists to cheer us on in our worst, least professional formulations, demonstrate an inability to understand conflicting point of views and demonstrate more than .0001 mm skin thickness when engaging in public debate. Prof. Cole ceased being able to do that long ago, and thus demonstrated a temperment that has rightly not advanced him further in the profession.
What is most disturbing in the original post to which you linked is how deeply intellectual dishonest it was. Any criticism of Beauchamp was due to crazies who, when they found even a “small detail” like the fact that someone who claimed to have been desensitized by months of battle was revealed as desensitized before seeing action was a sign of the intellectual and moral weakness of the stories’ critics and not serious flaws of the original TNR story. Other criticisms of factual inaccuracies and physical impossibilities (ammo “only used by the Iraqi police” or a dog “cut in half” and part of it still looking like a happy doggy instead of having been crushed like jelly) also are written off as signs of desperation as well. This was done all the while expressing contempt for those on the right whom the professor claimed were not so intellectually flexible to encompass the possibility that our troops were anything but modern day, gene-spliced ubermenschen a’la Captain America, Sgt. York and Private Ryan who lived in a band of brothers bliss interrupted only while hurling their bodies on jihadist grenades aimed at the cr?ɬ®ches of little Iraqi children. Those stupid right-wingers, not so smart as “the rest of us” who know better.
That someone who lives in a profession where argument and analysis should trump partisan emotion, such ridiculous caricaturing of the other side combined with an inability to address even elementary concerns over accuracy and truthfulness of stories and views that one finds congenial is a sign of the kind of rot that once upon a time afflicted Soviet studies (for samples read the works of J. Arch Getty, Steve Cohen or Robert Thurston to get a sense of how well established pro-Soviet and pro-Stalin apologists were prior to the collapse of the regime for which they shilled). So I am sorry that Cole represents where too many of my colleagues are at - he is not so much a man of conviction as a mudslinging partisan. I just wish that he were better and were a better representative of those of us who realize that our words matter as does the tone that we set in public forums.
Sincerely,
David
14
Jim C
// Aug 3, 2007 at 11:38 am
Hey John,
Here’s the problem with what TNR did; they published these lies without a bit of context, thereby making it look like this sort of shite is the norm. By doing that they slandered the 160,000 some odd troops serving honorably in Iraq. If you can’t see that then you’re either blind, or dishonest.
Jim C
15
FbL
// Aug 3, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Bravo, MajMike!
16
lex
// Aug 3, 2007 at 7:41 pm
As I mentioned in my private mail, for some strange reason the Wordpress Akismet spam filter just doesn’t like you much. It’s twice today I’ve had to rescue your comments from the penalty box. It’s usually so reliable and trouble free.
Huh.
I thought we had wished each other a nice life already, meaning that you couldn’t be bothered any more arguing a point of order with the right wing nuttosphere. But you can’t let it go, can you John? Have I wounded you in some way?
Whatever. As I said previously, I couldn’t believe that a blogger of your status - I read you routinely remember, back when you were readable - could get his shorts in such a twist because the “right wing nuttosphere” chose to collectively question a transparent smear on the forces. That there was some critical mass beyond which the whole thing was excessive. That you were the arbiter of taste in such a case.
Did you send a memo out John, telling people what the maximum level of attention could be given to any particular slander? Is there a widget we can plug in that tells us when we’re getting close? As I said, I’ve largely given up keeping track of the gay porn star set, which among them can be trusted to tell the truth, who among them are inherently suspect.
The very notion is absurd. I assumed you were going somewhere, that you were making a serious point. It never occurred to me that you were playing internet hall monitor and questioning the right of people to point out inconsistencies in a story published by a national journal with an established record for subsidizing fabulists.
Because no one could be that petty, right?
Did I pick a point and draw a line? Absolutely. But Beauchamp is either a prick or a liar or both. In fact, it’s pretty clear he is both. A lot of people called him out on that because his actions were a smear on 160,000 hard working, low paid individuals doing an incredibly difficult job under exceptionally arduous circumstances at the daily risk of their lives.
In turn, you called them out for doing it.
Congrats, John. You’re the hero.
Take a bow.
17
David Curp
// Aug 3, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Prof. Cole,
I think it was Chesterton who once wrote that the full potentiality of human fury could only be achieved when someone attempted to step between two people quarrelling and try to be reasonable. The problem with that formula is that it appears as if I would be casting you and Lex as equals when I feel in this instance you are not.
For many “on the right” the Beauchamp stuff was bothersome not because we have a plaster cast saint image of all our soldiers, who, in a counter-insurgency environment are likely as not going to get quite suspicious and hostile towards the locals no matter how sincerely they want to help. Insurgencies thrive on creating and nurturing this kind of hostility and part of how insurgents cope with their weakness is by how this dynamic puts enormous pressure on those who would fight them, which is why the laws of war have been so hard on those who would wage this kind of guerilla war, because it is a willed barbarization that pushes an already perilous situation further into the black. What bothered many of us was that TNR and so few of the media outlets have spent very little time writing about the good that our troops have been doing, the remarkable discipline that has kept many of the worst excesses from happening and that has gone aggressively after instances of misconduct and atrocity, especially given the real atrocities that are a matter of course of insurgent war making in Iraq.
The objection as I understood it and felt it with the whole point of the “shock troops” article was that its effort to paint a picture of serious moral erosion of our forces was a way of undermining support for the mission. Beauchamp’s article is not THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT for many of us - maybe some folks were hysterical, but a good number of people with military experience in recent years in a much more thoroughly professional military than that in which you served (presuming your service was in the 70s?) and that has likely as not benefited greatly from peace-keeping missions and international experience in developing a degree of cultural sensitivity said they smelled a rat. There were other details that bothered them as well, such as
Private Beauchamp wrote about…
ammo he claimed was only used by Iraqi police that were at the site of a killing - presumably the implication was that in Iraq we can only presume most of the security services are corrupt (but the catch was not only in the technical details of his description but his claim that this specific weapon was only used by the Iraqi police)…
The incident with the wounded women in the mess hall that is certainly not the worst atrocity but which does indicate some real problems with unit discipline if this kind of mockery could go unremarked (and which many people with more current military backgrounds said didn’t “smell right” contrary to TNR’s claims)…
and I could go on (regularly destroying lots of buildings with vehicles, etc), but the point is that people had questions, and were also angered not necessarily just over the fact that a less than perfect image of the troops was being presented (most of us on the right really aren’t that intellectually fragile) but that it was indeed out of balance given that there is little positive coverage of what our soldiers are achieving. That, as well as the sense of problem with the account, for many was the sticking point, though many who have served do feel that Beauchamp called into question the personal honor of forces serving in Iraq (though I take your point that this need not be the case). Those who objected called TNR on it, and TNR has discovered that an important portion of the story was wrong, and are claiming, via anonymous sources, that some other parts of the story stand (though there are other issues, the ammo, taking out of parts of buildings, etc which they have not claimed to have corroborated).
I don’t believe it is some kind of “wing nuttery” to have problems and questions, I am not trying to “swift boat” anyone, and I don’t presume you hate America (though many of your comments here and elsewhere on your blog reveal a boundless contempt for people to your political right). But you referred to Lex as a hack when he satirized your position, even as on your site you referred to many who raised objections about Beauchamp as believing he was the DIARIST WHO HATES AMERIKKA AND HER TROOPS and then you wrote to Private Beauchamp that “You gave certain segments of the nutters a chance to really feel patriotic and really pitch in on the war on terror from their laptop in Santa Monica when they investigated you and your girlfriend.” And you act as if Lex is a hack for suggesting that you are anything other than a reasonable man in love with the truth? Lex spun your position, but with a lot less dishonesty and violence than your implication that the people who objected to Private Beauchamp were simply a bunch of nerdly pajamahadin wannabes who needed the “testosterone rush.” Objecting to the constant invective, ad hominem arguments and real nastiness of many of your formulations, and tweaking you for it a’la Lex does you much less injustice than you, and many of the really rabid readers on your site do to those Americans with whom you and they disagree. You can and should do better than this, but haven’t in a very long time.
Finally, I pity you your “you haven’t showed me anything” because I really do wonder if you can take in contrary evidence, which is an analytical failure of a high order. Exhibit A - if Private Beauchamp makes a point of arguing that he has been dehumanized by what he saw in Iraq by virtue of his laughing at a wounded, burned woman, but it turns out this happened before he ever saw combat, then a major portion of his writing was not simply mistaken, it was a lie. This is so elementary I am sorry I can’t use crayons to show you how much this matters. Even worse, it shows that he already had serious problems prior to action. I have never had the honor of serving, I might be a great coward, and all the rest of it. But this is about basic textual analysis of a claim that was of key import to Beauchamp’s writing. Your inability and those of your own alleluia choir to see how much this “little detail” matters is deeply disturbing and does suggest that I’ve spent time on a fool’s errand in trying to point it out.
David Curp
ps: And Lex and friends, I’m sorry for another mini dissertation.
18
FbL
// Aug 4, 2007 at 5:31 am
What those who call the reaction to Beauchamp OVER-reaction (”he smeared the military as a whole”) keep skating past is that running through his stories was the theme that no one stepped up to correct the behavior he described. Upon reading Shock Troops, one is inescapably left with the idea that his fellow soldiers were as callous and cruel as he, that even the leadership in his unit didn’t have a problem with what he and his buddies did. That is a smear that goes far beyond “one soldiers’ experience.”
19
David Curp
// Aug 4, 2007 at 6:56 am
The jackass rate in the military vis a vis academia is what badbob? I am all but faint with anticipation for the deep command of sociology you are going to spring on us, in a lightning flash of wisdom that shows all our talk to be mere empty prattle compared to your divine command of the language…
20
David Curp
// Aug 4, 2007 at 7:15 am
I would think twice before tempting the computer gremlins and pixies who obviously are not amused with what you want to write…
21
badbob
// Aug 4, 2007 at 7:16 am
What a bunch of friggin hotair floating around in here.
This kid who wrote this collection of anecdotes, heresay, 2nd hand stories, and adolescent observations just tags himself as a petty, nasty little sumbitch. I think anyone- with any powers of critical thinking, would recognize that as a fact. I do agree with this point Cole makes indirectly-there are jack-ass privates.. AND seaman, airman, Admirals, Generals, LTs and CAPTs (sorry lex- not you)..Just as there are a fair proportion of A-holes in academia. IM,esteemed,O, I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢d say the jackass rate in the military is
.. I’d say the jackass rate in the military is <5%, in academia 85%, in
journalism- 90% in politics- near 100%! (oh yeah- of that 5% in the mil- we
separate from the service 4/5 of ‘em).
That being said, the damage caused by this little shiite, there just might
be the remote possibility that someone in the middle, who doesn’t have an
opinion on Iraq, might be swayed by some low circulation lefty-mag like the
TNR is preposterous. Who doesn’t have an opinion on Iraq? This horrible
tactic the Left uses to shape public opinion against the war with
individual nut-criminal-greedy cases ain’t nothing new. Abu Ghraib proves
that. Hell, they’ve been doing it and getting away with it since Vietnam.
And there will be more to come. I read they are getting a whole bunch of
those Oliver Stone type war flicks coming out soon….
Mr. Cole has nothing better to do than to come flaming in here and attempt
to call Lex and the rest of us a bunch of hypocrites because we defend the
overall honor of our men and women in harms way. He is going to set us
straight alright- LOL. He brands himself irrelevant with his “I knew some
dude named Preston” and the familiar, “I served to so I know” speech. We
should be lucky he ain’t using the scorched earth chicken-Hawk tactic…
Were you in that 5% Mr. Cole? I really want to think not.
b2
PS- David- re prattle: no offense but I hate going around in circles. Some
folks think they’re writin a dang Declaration O’Independence each time they
post..BTW- I ain’t got no command of ANY language, including Anglish, but
I have Commanded.
22
lex
// Aug 4, 2007 at 8:42 am
Please see update above, wherein I apologize to Prof. Cole for imputing to him attitudes I had only inferred.
Bad form on my part.
23
David Curp
// Aug 4, 2007 at 9:08 am
And your post is part of why it is worthwhile engaging. If part of Prof. Cole’s troll bodyguard (or even better just some fellow travelers who are much more sympathetic to his side but have something of an open mind) wandered over here, and maybe even some of the trolls who remember that they were human once, and see that rather than us all writing IN ALL CAPS ABOUT TERI SCHIAVO COULD HAVE LIVED WHILE TALKING ABOUT HOW NO CONSERVATIVES ARE INVOLVED IN GAY PORN (these are all non sequitors that Mr. Cole tossed off at his exquisitely fair blog) then maybe little sparks of humanity and reason might be awakened that might vitiate their anti-war passion (I’m a conservative after all, political passion is inherently dodgy).
And I don’t have a living memory of it, but I know that the new history on the Vietnam war is not so kind to the defeatists as it once was. On top of that I have strong convictions (not “passions”) on this score particularly after hearing Dith Pran (author of the Killing Fields/Cambodian genocide survivor) speak. He wasn’t very fluent, but I had to hide tears of delight mixed with feelings of real sorrow as this good, strong man spoke about how his people trusted the US to stay in Southeast Asia, and when we pulled out they suffered horribly for their hope in us (the delight was in watching my students to whom I gave extra credit to go to the talk were hearing another view that was also making many of my older colleagues squirm in frustration - the schaden and the freude all blended perfectly that night).
To help some people realize that we are raising legitimate questions is a point gained, and maybe the hot air can elevate them morally too? Even further, to demonstrate how the pathologies Cole claimed ad nauseum and in the most intellectually sophmoric ways motivated ALL CRITICISM OF BEAUCHAMPS FROM THE WINGNUT RIGHT is more like a projection of his inability to see another side than his own intolerance will be even more important, certainly for fair minded fence-sitters and maybe even for him. I don’t relish tangling with someone who seems to enjoy mockery as much as Mr. Cole, and who is writing in defence of a magazine like TNR that proclaimed the virtues of political hatred in relation to our current President. I suspect he is a good hater, he is not only fond of mockery but thin skinned when given a dollop of what he generously dishes out, and is so not only tiresome, but even a dispiriting conversationalist. But still, and maybe this is the remnants of my evangelical background asserting themselves, it is an offense even to Mr. Cole’s human dignity (and to a fellow citizen) to leave someone who is also a gifted scholar to wallow in his preconceptions without even trying to tell him he looks like an intellectual pig when he simply grunts insults and slings mud.
24
David Curp
// Aug 4, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Unkawill,
Alas, no. Partly because of too little time (also why I write such long posts - it takes time to edit if your not born with or trained into the Spartan like eloquence of a Casca) but also largely out of prudence. My name is already too easily googelable for many of the “wrong” causes for the health of my academic career as well as for that of any students I hope to see advance further in the profession, no need to compound the offense.
Finally, frankly I’m not that good at public debate - I do at times get angry, and too many on the net feed on that like the energy ghouls in the Star Trek ep who force Klingons and the Federation to fight it out with swords the better to batten on the hatred. Too much of that on the net and I fear getting sucked into it (just because I say political passion is generally not a good idea - better to keep politics at the level of thinking as often as you can - doesn’t mean I don’t have ‘em).
25
P-3W
// Aug 5, 2007 at 9:54 am
Prof. Curp,
Your posts may be long, but they are definitely of good value. You are able to extract out of my short, sometimes snarky, posts that which I am trying to say — with much better effect.
Thank you for your patience in continuing to post responses to Mr. Cole, especially with such effective arugments.
The main reason I visit blogs, Lex’s in particular, is to learn something — anything. Just from your posts, I would hazard to guess that your students learn a LOT in your classes, most importantly to think ideas through thoroughly. That ability will stand them in good stead for all of their lives and is a vital tool that you have had the honor to teach them.
BZ, Professor.
26
Ens Tim
// Aug 5, 2007 at 2:57 pm
The military continues to enforce the concept that we are fighting to protect the free speech of all Americans, even those who publicly denounce us. Hearing about this story makes me thing that perhaps that’s a right we should stop defending for some.
27
socialism_is_error
// Aug 5, 2007 at 4:30 pm
For my part, Ensign, I welcome self-embarassment by the Left.
Not that such should pass without judicious comment.
28
fliterman
// Aug 5, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I also believe it was also Woodrow Wilson who was not a very big fan of the United States Constitution - something I hold very dear. In fact, he believed it “cumbersome” and preferred a parliamentary system with its fewer checks and balances.
While President Wilson is an interesting study, and I do agree with him and respect him on some levels, we certainly part ways regarding our respective views on the US Constitution. (And the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 while perhaps well intended, were indeed an affront if not an attack on that great document!)
Furthermore, I find it especially ironic that so many here who have personally sworn an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” … that some would so easily waver on the First Amendment to that Constitution, and actually advocate the abridging of speech freedom for certain select, albeit obnoxious individuals.
As one formerly sworn to defend said such sacred document including all its amendments, and all the people it is supposed to protect……
Please appreciate my ire.
29
David Curp
// Aug 6, 2007 at 6:16 am
Dear filterman,
I almost prefaced my quote of President Wilson with the statement that even a broken clock is right twice a day, but didn’t want to open up the problematic Wilsonian legacy. A question though on the espionage and sedition acts, which I agree make the Patriot Act look like childsplay (how many Americans now would be languishing in a secret prison in Romania or the Montana Gulag if those acts had been revived for the war on terror, I wonder) - if every “affront of the constitution” that could be construed as an “attack” a’la the Sedition Act is part of the slippery slope to tyranny, how come the results ended up as “much ado about nothing” in the grand historical sweep of things (could we include in this President Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeaus corpus? was he not a “big fan” of the US constitution either?). The injustices resulting from both acts were wrong and regrettable and not entirely separable from the acts themselves but the US did not become a dictatorship. Maybe, given that the constitution is not a suicide pact democracies at war might enact laws that are different from normal, peace time rules and regs and ultimately be none the worse for wear. If you want to talk truly “frightful” police-state like lack of limitations on police power, MI5 in England or the French have us beat at our Sedition act enacted, Patriot Act empowered worst.
Two other minor points - I share your concern if not alarm over the speculation that maybe the military should not defend the free speech rights of some. My assumption was that someone signing himself as an ensign was not the CNO stealthily positioning amphibious forces to seize D.C. and declare martial law, but was rather a junior officer venting in ways that he oughtn’t really. I judged the way to deal with such a tack was gentle deflection - to suggest the unintended consequences of free speech for those who really are being seditious in the true sense of the word (when Michael Moore says that the forces fighting us in Iraq are the new minutemen and they will win, he was intending to give aid and comfort to the enemy/what anywhere else in the world would be sedition).
The disciplines of democracy must hold, it is ominous when even in idle internet remarks a soldier or sailor even allows himself to speculate about their value, but I can understand frustration when some of our countrymen act as surogate propagandists for our enemies, as opposed to raising legitimate policy concerns over our presence in Iraq. I didn’t regard it as “easily wavering” for Ens. Tim to vent, but alas, your ire is not misplaced. Democracy needs citizen-soldiers, not praetorians.
The last, quick question though is, does not pronouncing the constitution a “sacred document” violate the separation of Church and State and the secular nature of the Republic? Why do free men need their constitutional compact (that they made to be amended) as sacred? Can I not regard The Constitution as hallowed by history, good, just and binding without figuring out how to burn incense to it? Just askin…
30
CPT J
// Aug 6, 2007 at 7:05 am
Dr. Curp,
The Constitution as a compact to be amended from time to time as the People see fit is not what’s sacred about it. Its the idea that it could even exist in the first place is what’s sacred. Its an unfinished promise, as we are still an unfinished Nation. Its a date with the future, and a gift to our posterity. It is faith in the unknown, and perhaps the unknowable. Its the Civic Religion, as Eisenhower said.
What’s sacred about the Constitution is the faith people put in it, and the way that faith guides their actions. In the end, its Americans pledging fealty to each other, not to any particular partisan church creed or political faction. I don’t know if there is a single right and unalterable answer to what the Constitution should say–or if that even matters, only that it should be allowed to go on imperfectly saying it, protected “from all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Perhaps the greatest enemy is an understandably human craving for certainty, for surety, which is not given to us. Only hope is.
Beyond memorizing the Preamble, I couldn’t tell you in detail what the Constitution actually says. But I’ve held its silent meaning in blood-stained, crumpled aircraft aluminum. The price of the faith of those who went before me, and in whose place I now stand.
That’s not much of a legalistic answer, is it?
31
David Curp
// Aug 6, 2007 at 8:01 am
Dear Capt. J.
Very true and important words sir. And it is precisely because I agree with you that what gives the constitution its power is the determination of a free people to remain free, I don’t get my knickers in a twist when a law designed to defend the country goes against what some jurists regard as the letter of the document. Laws, and even if I may dare, the constitution itself, would be little more than a parchment barrier to tyranny if and when we lost the habits of a free people and did not understand our history aright as a struggle for freedom.
I do wonder if the desire for certainty is as much the enemy of freedom as you seem to imply. I know with dogmatic, metaphysical certainty that slavery is an affront to human dignity (even as I understand the sad confusions that made it seem acceptable for so long), the regime (and perhaps the people) that made an Auschwitz possible and was reaching for nuclear technology needed to be destroyed even if that required the firebombing of their cities, and that a movement that regards baking and serving children to their parents an important part of civic education in the new Islamic order must be destroyed. Similarly, I know that human freedom, even freedom (pardon the archaic structure) “to sin” in ways deeply spiritually injurious to the “sinner” are largely beyond the reach of the state to regulate. Do such certainties make me an enemy, perhaps the greatest enemy?
Your sense of continuity with those who have given everything in this life for our freedom, and your belief that this is as entwined with the meaning of the constitution at least as much (and likely moreso) than any legal formula represents a desire certainty that it is hard to distinguish from rock solid dogmatics of faith. I don’t think that is a bad thing at all, far from it. And I don’t honor the significance of the constitution less because of it. I think however, there might be some tension and disconnect between filterman’s concern over the constitution as a body of law that on the one hand can be offended against by the Sedition and Espionage Acts and on the other is sacred, and wanted to point that out. If all that matters is the law, then legalistic answers are all we’ve got. If, on the other hand, we recognize that while “we cannot hallow, cannot consecrate” this or any other ground (or document), but that those who’ve given their last full measure have and are(and sadly, will need in the future) to pay with their blood for the possibility that “this nation under God will have a new birth of freedom” then we do have hope to be sure. But that hope is not entirely grounded in this world (wasn’t for Lincoln I would venture to say), and does not find its chief opponent in the desire for certainty (including the idea that the constitution itself does have a meaning and is not what 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it means, even if we are rightly bound to defer to their judgment for a time).
I don’t want to read anyone out of the Republic on the basis of lacking faith or certainty (or for that matter, having it), and I agree we have bonds with one another as Americans that matter hugely in this life, if not transcendentaly and eternally. The point of my post to filterman was to set things up so I could later suggest that if we can regulate free speech to encompass child pornography and hate speech, why is some recognition of seditious propaganda as such (that may be followed by efforts to regulate the worst kinds of sedition) such a violation of our sacred constitution? Jane Fonda did betray our country and helped make propaganda that she knew would inspire enemies of our country (fighting their own illegal war - pray what were North Vietnamese troops doing in the south?) trying to kill Americans. Similarly, Michael Moore is consciously contributing to the moral and poltical work of our enemies in Iraq not by mocking the President but by proclaiming the lost cause of Sadaamite Bathism and Al Qaeda Jihad to be the 21st century equivilent of the minutemen, whose cause must triumph. That is not just an effort to question whetehr Iraq is the right battle at this time, was an unjust war, etc. but is an effort to provide aid and comfort to the enemy.
I fear what happens when our soldiers, who see that the kinds of things our media regularly cover up about the atrocities of our enemies (like they admittedly covered up just how awful Sadaam’s regime was before the war ). The knowledge of many of our soldiers of such things, combined with domestic opponents of the war seizing upon every act of misconduct of our forces without the necessary context of the extreme brutality of our enemies to deligitimize their mission in a “shocking” matter, has the potential to make outbursts like Ensign Tim’s seem childplay in the future.
(Particularly given how the a certain party during the last Presdintial election have now made it legitimate form for a candidate to make his military service the centerpeice of a campaign, salute a national convention and begin a politcal speech with “Reporting for duty” - that such a party has opened the door not only to military men holding high office, but to some of the trappings of militarism as such in poltics without comment or criticism is a cause of wonder for me and far more disconcerting than an ensign in a moment of frustration).
If we are going to evoke sacred values, fair enough, but part of that sanctity includes realizing that the meaning of the constitution matters more legal disputes in a law profession dominated by positivism. And that meaning includes recognizing our responsibilities toward our men and women in uniform when they are in harms way. The shots I was aiming were not directed at the Constitution, but what I perceived was the desire of filterman (no disrespect intended filterman) to have it both ways in terms of legalism while wanting to enjoy all the ire and sense of outraged honor that the more humanistic and patriotic sense of the constitution allows.
32
CPT J
// Aug 6, 2007 at 9:24 am
Dr. Curp,
I think I do understand you better, and thank you for the finer distinctions.
If each member of the military willingly goes into harm’s way, to lose friends and possibly themselves, in the process of defending the Nation, than putting up with seditious behavior by fellow citizens who should know better, is going to be a bitter but necessary part of the fight. The people whose minds are already made up cannot be convinced otherwise. Only the passage of time or another terrible blow to this country would make any difference to them –and still then maybe not. The first cannot be hurried and the second is to be prevented by every effort.
It is the rest of the nation that is undecided who must be convinced, and that is done by keeping faith with the better sense of the majority, who see for themselves the fidelity and courage of those sworn to protect them, and by that example make up their own minds about what really matters.
Praetorianism is an evil to be guarded against, and that’s probably best done by sticking to and reinforcing core values of service before self. To do otherwise would be fall into a different trap of certainty. About the only thing certain of the future that we are in for a wild ride and we are going to need everybody pulling together. Patience, tact and forebearance in the face of provocation are the best course. Self discipline is the habit of acting for the best, with the best outcome in mind. We do not need to know in advance exactly what Providence has in mind for us.
If that uncertainty was good enough for Washington and Lincoln, I think we can bear it now.
33
David Curp
// Aug 6, 2007 at 9:34 am
Agreed.
34
Casca
// Aug 6, 2007 at 9:40 am
Amen.
35
lex
// Aug 6, 2007 at 9:48 am
You guys sure I can’t talk you into writing your own blog?
I could sell tickets.
36
fliterman
// Aug 6, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Dr. Curp,
Lex’s blog marches on…. Nevertheless, it would be rude of me to avoid any comment on the wonderfully rich banquet of learned thought and opinion you have presented here. You offer much to consider. Therefore, I will mostly ponder rather than quibble.
But just a couple of quick comments:
My usage of the word “sacred” was not to imply any religious or spiritual connection to the document. For the lack of a better word, I only wanted to denote the magnitude and significance of what the US. Constitution is and what it represents.
You easily and correctly caught my rather oblique references to the Patriot Act. And while we both do agree that there must naturally be some necessary restrictions and certain limits to our Constitutionally protected freedoms, we will have to differ on exactly where and how to place those restrictions. Fortunately, neither our elected representatives nor we determine the constitutionality of any law. And of course that is why the politicization of the Judicial Branch must always be avoided at all cost.
We are fortunately well beyond the earlier sedition acts of our history. But we can still learn from them in their propensity to invite abuse, and their unintended consequences, as an elected Jefferson would attest.
And with subsided ire, please accept my warm regards?¢‚Ǩ¬¶
37
David Curp
// Aug 6, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Dear Filterman,
Thank you. As the
indicated, I was playing just a bit with your formulation of a sacred constitution in the context of your broader argument rather than attacking. But watching blogs in particular, and public discourse in general, my own default mode is to push for more precision, something which you do rather well.
As for the limits, one of my anxieties is the potential political/legal impact of a string of successful terrorist attacks carried out in this country. I think it would get very ugly, very fast and I would rather stretch our laws a little now than pay the price of a likely as not more extremist reaction later. On the whole I think the public and most lawmakers get that. And I guess that on the whole I do trust the guvinment and our public servants to get the balance right when it comes to internal security (and we still do have more ways of restricting internal policing than France and England and yet I think it is fair to call them well functioning democracies).
My prudence tells me that it is worth the risk that the laws enacted now that might enable Dick Cheney’s or Hilary Clinton’s minions to glance through my e-mails (presuming they really want to - that would be a dreary enough task to break the spirit of any would-be totalitarians). This seems a price worth paying so that the guvinment can monitor cell-phone contacts between anyone in the US and the Northwest Frontier/tribal areas of Pakistan (or Beijing for that matter).
So thank you for your warm regards and your willingness to play the gadfly when necessary. Being in academia has sensitized me to the perils of groupthink and I appreciate your willingness to mix things up here from time to time. Along with Lex’s own example of learning and civility it makes this a fun blog on which to spend time.
38
David Curp
// Aug 6, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Capt. J,
I’m presuming that Lex is still open to me playing the intellectual equivilent of a court jester in his domain, showing you how eventually, albeit more slowly and painfully even an academic can puzzle out the right conclusion with only 5X the words.
39
lex
// Aug 6, 2007 at 1:09 pm
No, by all means, do play on
40
CPT J
// Aug 6, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Dr. Curp,
Since the wishes of our senior officer and host are to be construed as an affirmative command, I’d say Yes–please continue. We all benefit.
41
David Curp
// Aug 6, 2007 at 2:11 pm
As odd and strange as this may seem (actually the surprise is it hasn’t happened earlier) I don’t have a lot more to add right now but would be quite happy to respond to comments and critiques.
I’ve been tempted to wander over to Lex’s thread on Islam, but I would basically just council caution and patience when it comes to how we deal with religions and cultures different than our own with their own mix of faults and virtues, and I’ve said that before. I get Lex’s sympathy for VDH’s impatience with a conservatism so dysfunctional that denouncing honor killing looks brave and unusual. I’m impatient myself, and the underlying fanaticism that such dysfunction reveals is likely as not adding fuel to the flames to our problems in Iraq.
Yet, if what we are doing abroad has an “imperial” element to it (and I don’t think that is so bad - providing adult supervision for the Germans and Japanese after WWII was imperial to the extent that it was done without the consent of the locals and necessary), I think we would be much better served by the British model of as light and patient a touch as possible, rather than a kind of French “mission civilitrice” that seeks to turn Iraqis into good Americans, and makes sure that every Afghan girl, from Kabul to the meanest village near the Kyber pass has an opportunity for an education. But, as I said, I am not going to comment on that conversation at length…
Leave a Comment