War stories: TNR and Beachamp—what’s all the breast-beating about? (Part II)
[Part I here.]
In previous wars, allegations of atrocities have been made by either victims or witnesses. For example, in the case of My Lai, reports were originally made by US helicopter pilots who were shocked by what they saw as they hovered over the action. There’s no indication that anyone involved in the actual murders came forward with a mea culpa, and the investigation was stalled until it went public.
My Lai was a watershed of sorts, a bona vide and documented atrocity by the US military involving hundreds of victims (and please see this link to understand what actually happened there). Vietnam—and the shock of My Lai—seemed to open the floodgates towards self-revelation of war crimes, as exemplified by the Winter Soldier hearings in 1971, which occurred about a year after My Lai became public but before the trial and sentences had been completed.
These hearings were nothing if not profoundly controversial, and remain so even today. This is not the place to debate whether they were “packed with pretenders and liars” (as this comprehensive site alleges. and this book describes), or whether the testimony given at the hearings was valid. You can do the research and come to your own conclusions. What I’m most interested in for the purposes of this post is the fact of people—veterans or pretenders—publicly confessing to their own war crimes (or misdemeanors), real or imagined.
I’m hardly equating those who tell the truth with those who lie. Those who are telling the truth have fairly straightforward motivations, although they may indeed have an agenda. In this they are probably motivated by the same things that drive any confessor of a crime he/she has committed: conscience, and/or the apprehension that he/she might be about to be caught anyway.
But what about the liars or exaggerators (and Beauchamp may well be among them)?
Lying about war exploits is not at all unusual. In fact, it’s so common that there’s a stock commedia dell ‘arte character known as “Capitano” who fits this description, as Roger Simon pointed out in connection with John Kerry during the 2004 campaign. But this figure, although a liar and pretender, pretends at heroism, not barbarity. His lies are designed to augment his claims of bravery; they are most decidedly not confessions of wrongdoing.
My Lai, although an incident unique in scope and circumstance, had a profound effect on perceptions of the military in the US. Traditional kneejerk assumptions of bravery and honor—those that any “Capitanos” would previously have been bragging about—were stood on their head.
The peculiarities and special characteristics of the Vietnam War that provided the context for My Lai were largely unknown to the American public; to gain some insight, please go here, scroll down to about a quarter of the way from the bottom, and take special care to read the sections entitled “Rules of Engagement,” “General Westmoreland’s ‘Strategy of Attrition,'” “Rotations,” “Enemy Tactics,” “Project 100,000,” and “Heavy Losses/Casualties.” These problems and others meant that Vietnam was a sort of transitional war in which the military was facing conditions for it was inadequately prepared, which led to especially heavy stresses for those who fought there.
This, combined with the beginnings of what might be called the “therapizing” of America, may have led to a different sort of “bragging”—this time, about wrongdoings. Unlike the vets of WWII, who believed that the best way to deal with whatever psychological trauma they had experienced during that war was to keep their mouths shut and reenter the peacetime world, Vietnam (and all subsequent) vets have been exposed to the idea that voicing feelings helps to exorcise them, and that confessing to crimes (or misdemeanors) could be one good way to do that.
During Vietnam, the Left was very active in organizing confessional events such as Winter Soldier. There is evidence that they were assisted in this by the Communists in Hanoi, who rightly supposed that such mass confessions would be good for their propaganda purposes as well. Whether or not the Communists were actually involved, there’s no doubt that the entire Winter Soldier event was a group rather than an individual one, and as such the confessing vets would have been subjected to interpersonal pressures, including suggestibility and even competitiveness.
False confessions are not limited to wartime crimes, however; they are a well-known phenomenon that police often have to deal with (one recent case is here.) Sometimes they are coerced, but it’s not at all unheard of for them to be voluntary.
What would motivate a person to make a false confession? Ordinarily, one (or some combination) of the following: the need to expiate guilt over some other offense, real or imagined; the desire for attention, even if negative; and/or the delusion that the false confession is actually true.
Beauchamp’s stories, if false, would almost undoubtedly fall under one or several of these headings. I will speculate that the second one—desire for attention—is the most likely motivator for Beauchamp, although that doesn’t rule out any of the others. But publication in TNR is certainly a plum for an aspiring writer (I wouldn’t mind that gig myself). He’s already revealed that he initially went to Iraq in order to write a book about this “misguided” war, so it’s clear that—whatever else may or may not have occurred to him after arriving there—he came there already having an antiwar agenda. It would stand to reason that Beauchamp also came to the Iraq war with the template set down by My Lai and the Winter Soldier testimony about the US military (as well as Abu Ghraib) set firmly in his mind.
If notoriety was his motivation, Beauchamp has already gotten his fifteen minutes of fame, and more—perhaps more than he originally bargained for when he took computer in hand and set about to write his dispatches. And he’s done his bit to further the image of the American soldier as demented war criminal—although, as with much of history, it’s repeating itself “the first time as tragedy [My Lai], the second as farce.”
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a related and recommended article by Rev. Paul W. McNellis, entitled “Pvt. Beauchamp: Proud of Being Ashamed?”]
[ADDENDUM II: A psychological phenomenon that ties in somewhat is the odd syndrome known as Munchausen’s.]
Excellent posts.
Beauchamp is the modern leftist equivalent of the religious penitent, more than willing to self flagellate as a public demonstration of piety.
There will be a strange competition as to who best represents American ‘evil.’ After My Lai, the search for greater and even more horrific examples of American misdeeds became a leftist obsession.
That obsession has resulted in a strange world where there is no evil as great as an American evil and no crimes against humanity as great as American crime- which of course are usually invented as a part of hidden conspiracy. The leftists who can repent for the greatest sin or evil, has become a source of great competition, with every day bringing more wild eyed claims of American conspiracies and perfidy. Each leftist claimant can then bask in the warmth and recognition their ‘confessions’ have brought them.
Tens of millions have been slaughtered by the ideologues the left supports, but that is of little consequence.
As long as America remains the Great Satan, the leftist penitents have a reason to live.
Let’s not forget that there’s also a strong financial incentive for coming up with attractive atrocity stories. Scott Beauchamp was on his way to a regular gig at New Republic, a book deal, maybe even a feature film based on his harrowing experiences. Nor is he the first — Jarhead blazed that trail, giving Anthony Swofford, its author, a thriving career. (Jarhead also had the advantage of not being a pack of lies.)
How much would a soldier be able to earn writing stories about the heroism, courage, and decency of his comrades? Michael Yon does that and barely makes enough to live on. He’s frozen out of the media machine. The vapid Hollywood billionaires who loathe ordinary Americans have made it easy and profitable to publish stories of military misdeeds, and impossible to tell stories of courage and heroism.
I’m interested in the same thing you are: what was Beauchamp’s motivation?
I agree with you and Sig and whoever believes Beauchamp is looking for attention and career advancement.
HOWEVER, intentionally or not, Beauchamp has highlighted a strategy which the left surely believes could be used to end this war and future wars: have more military personel speak out against wars, via the methodology of sending masses of anti-war ideologues into the the military, and thence into battle zones, and thence into print, and onto camera Because the left revers the messenger over and above reasoned examination of the message; and because the left revers the generalization over and above reasoned examination of the generalization; therefore the left would surely rever anti-war soldiers over and above anything else.
The left may be onto something. North Vietnam and Al Qaeda and Iran all aim(ed) their war strategies at the American public and at the American Congress. An leftist insertion of larger numbers of anti war soldiers into Iraq would also be taking dead aim at the American public and the American Congress. It’s hard to think of a more effective strategy for crippling public support, and thus crippling and ending the effort to aid the success of a democratic Iraqi government.
The American effort to win in Iraq has not targeted the American public – has not targeted the informing of the American public of the threats we face and of the progress and of difficulties we encounter – nearly as effectively as it could have. In defense of the military, they had large obstacles to overcome. Still, they should have done better. They should have better recognized the strategic significance of getting the truth out. President Bush has few excuses. He did not display excellence in this area. In fact, he was less than mediocre.
Back to the top question: what was Beauchamp’s motivation? Part of it – maybe a smaller part – sort of like the cherry on top of all the attention he would get and the career he would create – maybe was his recognition of the strategic role he would be playing in ending the American war effort sooner rather than later. If he motivated other anti-war types to join the military even as they would have a pre-set agenda to speak out against the war, then Beauchamp would be accomplishing his job in even a larger and more effective fashion.
If I was the New Republic writer who eventually married Beauchamp, I might find his actions impossibly brave and courageous and daring. If one is anti-war, it’s easy to assert Beauchamp was “making a difference” and “changing the world” via his daring actions.
I recently viewed again the “Winter Soldier” film on YouTube and some recent interviews with some of those guys. In one case in the film you get the impression that prisoners were thown out of a helicopter in flight but in an NPR interview 30 years later the same guy said they were pushed out a few feet from the ground.
Also, John Kerry went into extreme detail about alledged US crimes but when asked about the concentration camps built after the war, he said that they were “not pretty” and left it at that.
Please forgive my compulsive pendantry but I must point out that the stock comedy figure of the braggart soldier home from the wars goes back to the New Comedy school of the Hellenistic Era. He dates from the conquests of Alexander the Great and the Wars of the Successors that followed when many people would have known men who went away to war and came back years later full of amazing stories of what they did and saw.
Later, Roman dramatists picked up the character. In Latin he was known as “Miles Gloriosus” (The Boastful Soldier.)
Well said, ma’am.
The only issue I’ve found in the post and its comment string to disagree with is this bit by gctharn:
I would like to ask, by what mechanism should the military or the POTUS have done a better job of information dissemination?
The msm is THE mechanism responsible for such dissemination. The industry has refused to do its war time duty. There is no state controlled mechanism to cover this loss of fidelity, honor and integrity by our traditional news distributors.
There has been endless streams of information useful toward exactly what the commenter says should have been done. These have been made publicly and freely available but the media usually chooses to either ignore them or spin them into nonsense.
Those who have a proclivity or tendency to fall quickly to the propaganda of our enemy will often point to the POTUS as at fault. But, I remember very moving and appropriate speeches at appropriate moments. There have been a number of appearances. The words have been said, and said, and said and said nearly ad nauseum. Still, many choose to remember the meme or spin of “all he said was to go shopping” (not accusing anyone here of that, just pointing to an easy identifier of those either spreading or having fallen for enemy bullcrap) or hasn’t said anything or hasn’t done his part.
The job of the POTUS during a time of war or peace is to manage the business of the nation, not to hold my or your hand and keep whispering into our ears to help us hold up our courage. The maintenance of our will to fight is our own responsibility. We are adults. We are responsible for what we believe and how staunchly we hold the line against the enemy.
No one is to blame for weakness but the weak themselves. There are those who prey upon the weak and make them the feast of choice in their predations against our nation. This makes the weak a source of strength for our enemy. This is why we must constantly guard ourselves from such weakness. Those who’s duty it is to provide the information and news to help bolster the weak against those predations have gone over to the enemy themselves. These people are not responsible for the weakness of the weak but are responsible for assisting in their exploitation by those who wish us all destroyed.
There is a problem in the area of information distribution in this nation, lets make sure the noose is fitted for the proper neck when assessing responsibility.
As usual, I probably mushed too many rants into one and made no sense of anything. Thank God I don’t have to make a living trying to write.
“Kerry’s Soviet Rhetoric: The Vietnam-era antiwar movement got its spin from the Kremlin.” by Ion Mihai Pacepa at NRO on February 26, 2004:
For those who still believe that such enemy propaganda campaigns are only in theory, research Haditha and the USMC SOG unit’s banishment from Afghanistan.
Both “incidents” were enemy propaganda victories assisted by a compliant news media with no regard or concern for true fact.
Another thing to consider when evaluating opinion is long term propaganda efforts held over from preceeding wars and conflicts.
I too simple and slow to figure out the link tag stuff and dont want to put one of those long page breaker http copy/pastes. So, I have to go the long way around, sorry.
Start at Soldiers’ Angles Germany blog and look for the Aug 7 entry titled Against all enemy.
While reading that, try to remember exactly when it was that the left began with the “bushitler” crap. It predates the Iraq war. It predates the Afghan invasion.
“Beauchamp is the modern leftist equivalent of the religious penitent, more than willing to self flagellate as a public demonstration of piety.”
And yet his self-flagellation is merely a post–his intent is to shame and defame others. And he is aided in this by a liberal news media which is ready and eager to absolve him of all blame while condemning honorable men and women.
Grimmy,
I agree with most or all of what you said, yet I hold POTUs and our military to an extremely high standard in this instance. It is a measure of my respect for them that I hold them to such a high standard.
Its possible Pres. Bush and the military leaders did not expect the media to be quite so blatantly partisan as they have been. Yet Pres. Bush and the military did not adapt to the new realities as quickly and as nimbly as was needed. B/c I hold them to such a high standard, I expected them adapt to the media’s partisan agenda more effectively.
I agree the media has ignored many of Pres. Bush’s inspiring speeches and phrases. I say, I expect Pres. Bush to adapt, and to find ways to better get his message across. If he has to give 5 speeches a week, and go over the media’s head and directly to the people, he should do that. This is war, and much of the American public has no clue who the enemy is, or what the threat is, or how serious the threat is. I expect Pres. Bush to rise above whatever obstacles are put in his path.
The military, also. Michael Yon has written several times about obstacles the military has put in his path, and mistrust and hostility which has been directed his way as a member of the media. Once a mid level officer ordered Yon’s equipment, and his clothing bag, dumped out of his trailer in a rainstorm, and into the mud, so someone else could use Yon’s trailer. I tend to believe Yon’s assertion that it was an act of hostility towards him.
It’s also difficult for Yon to get computer time at the various military bases. The military should be falling all over themselves to get Yon all the computer time he can handle – and Michael Totten also, and a bunch of other media/bloggers.
When Gen Patreaus took charge, he made a big effort to change the military attitude towards the media. I believe I remember this correctly: General Patreaus says the military needs to be more forthcoming and accomodating to the media. He says the military needs to get more of the truth out to the media, be it good or bad. Its win/win. If the truth is good: good. If the truth is bad, hiding it isn’t going to do the military any good. Get the truth out, so everyone can see the actual situation, and see what changes need to be made.
I hope this is a slight answer to your question.
I tried posting to this earlier but it seems to have not gone through. Maybe too large and wordy. I get that way sometimes.
Here’s an effort at a condensed version:
gcotharn:
I also remember M. Yon’s problems with the military in some command areas. I tend to chalk most of that up to local command peculiarities and not something “top down”.
I do refute your assertion that something more could have been done by the military as a whole, or the POTUS in particular.
I remember, full well, the concept already existing in the US military during my time in service, that the media was an aggressive and hostile enemy. This was from the late 70’s to the mid 80’s. The ROE and such that our forces are saddled with now were already well under development by that time. It was taken as a matter of faith that in any war time setting, the US population would be fickle and unreliable and near totally submissive to enemy propaganda efforts and there was squat all that could be done about it.
There’s this thing called reality. It imposes very solid restrictions. One of those is, that for so long as our tradtional media is owned by those who support our enemy then the enemy will be supported by that media and not our own forces.
It is very much a reality. There is no access to distribute information to the mass of our civilians for so long as the traditional media is in the hands of those either too stupid or too evil to understand the harm they cause.
M. Yon is one example of a new media that is attempting to fill the duty that our traditional media has betrayed. He has had difficulties in some places where others like him have not. Some others like him have had difficulties that he has not. Much depends on the place, the time and the personalities involved but I doubt that any of it comes from directives issued on high.
The military will take on the blame for this, even though there is nothing that could have been done to fix this issue from the possition of the military. This is not a failure of our military. It is purely and simply a failure of our journalists.
The military issues news briefs on a constant basis and they are ignored or spun. The military held open press comferences until the journalists got bored and quit coming. The military opened up itself to the embed process and fewer and fewer traditional journalists are interested. Many of those who do go embed also choose to grossly misrepresent what is said and done by our forces as well.
One case of such is spoken of in a youtube vid by a young USMC company commander in reference to a pos betrayer from the Economist. I dont have a link to it, though, sorry.
The attempt to provide for the media long predates Gen Peteaus. Nothing has changed since his take over , nothing of substance. It is not anything the military can change. It is the industry of journalism that is at fault.
There is no state controlled organism or organization for the broadcast and dissemination of information. If information is being misapplied, mismanaged and/or misused, it is the fault of those who’s job it is to provide our citizenry such information that are at fault. Them and them only.
Journalism is loaded with those who openly and aggressively align themselves with our enemy. Many of those who don’t are too stupid to understand cause and effect or to ignorant to understand even the most basic issues involved and have no possibility of accurately or honestly relaying information.
This is not the military’s fault. This is nothing new. It has been a constant since the late 60s and will not change until the industry of journalism is forced by outside pressures to clean up its act.
It is not possible to adapt to an openly hostile entity, except to ignore it. If the entity charged with the dissemination of information is determined to misconstrue, mistranslate, malform, invert the meaning of and or otherwise betray their duty, nothing can be done to adapt to that. Any effort is simply a waste of time.
It will, eventually, be up to those who still hold to their oath to stand against all enemy, be they foreign born or domestic.
That is another issue. The abject failure of our Justice Department to enforce federal law regarding betrayers during a time of war.
Grimmy,
It is not only war reporting that the media has utterly failed to use open source press-briefings, fact sheets, and releases by the US Military. Anyone can look these up. During Hurricane Katrina, the MSM deliberately lied about the deployment of Federal Military Forces even though the Army and Navy had press releases stating exactly what was going on.
Now, had any of the Pulitzer Prize winning journalists actually BEEN in N.O., they would have been easily able to verify that the USS Bataan, a Wasp Class Landing Ship (looks like a WWII Carrier), moved into port just after the hurricane passed through. The Navy released this information and I posted it to Newsbusters. The Bataan disgorged her USMC Engineering unit and they cleared landing areas for follow on units (the pics they posted on Strategypage.com were pretty cool). Yet, there was never a report on the Bataan and her acts. Just as there were few, if any, reports on the stalling that Gov Blanco did with relief convoys on Louisiana’s.
I would like to know why the Sec NAV did not scream this out to the media, but we in the military failed to learn our lessons from GW1. The media has an agenda. It is not the truth they are after, or even profits, as declining NYTs sales show. They have a political and ideological agenda. Truth and an American victory anywhere are not on that agenda.
Many in the Military know of Yon and we love him to death. Not since Joe Galloway or Ernie Pile has a reporter gained our trust like Yon. Unfortunately, we have some 90s hold overs who seem more interested in how to be PC than how to win wars in my opinion. I hope with the changes this year in Iraq that this segment has been marginalized, but as others pointed out with Haditha, there is still a force in the Military who could care less about the truth, honor, and our core values as they seem to only care about placating media and media induced “popular opinion”.
This is why when people ask me how Iraq was, I tell them how I despise CNN/AP/Reuters and the fact that they make up bold face lies which someone in the high up PAO is to cowardly to go out and beat down with the facts. Case in point, I supposedly died five times in Iraq as the IZ was allegedly hit with several car bombs and massive rockets. One rocket and a few mortars hit. Only one mortar actually killed anyone in the IZ (and I knew one of them very well). Yet the media keeps reporting easily verifiable lies. They even use stock footage, or footage of the power plant south of the IZ for photo ops. Disgusting.
As it is, honorable Service Members created MILBLOGS and are the ones doing the DOD PAO’s job for them. In “thanks” these honest MILBLOGGERS (The TNR’s little fiction writer not included) and Service Members who support them, like me, get told by new regulations that we cannot post on the net. Well, that is until the Generals and Admirals got an earful from the entire force on that issue and they made a “clarification”.
It is incredible that the Service Members trying to get the good news out are running into such walls.
Grimmy,
Maybe we’ve been talking past each other a bit, and can agree on some things.
Re our military: my quarrel is strictly with the strategists at the very top – not with the 99% of the rest of the military. Maybe I could communicate better.
I agree with you that the media is hostile and derelict in their duty to report truth.
I hope you will agree that getting truth to the American public is just as important as any military victory achieved with bullets or bombs. The battlespace in Peoria is equally important as the battlespace in Iraq. This is what the military strategists have failed to fully grasp, imo. This is the area in which Pres. Bush has been less than mediocre. This is the stretegic area which our military strategists are failing to fully appreciate. The enemy appreciates it. The enemy attacks are aimed DIRECTLY at the Peoria battlespace.
If Peoria is a critically important battlespace, our strategists must figure a way to overcome obstacles and get truth to Peoria. And Pres. Bush must make certain the residents of Peoria know who/what the enemy/threat is, as well as the scope and severity of the danger.
I don’t care about the obstacles encountered. Our media are on the other side. So? We’ve simply got to deal with it. Our military strategists either come up with an appropriate strategy, or they don’t. Everything else is irrelevant. It’s not too much to ask that our military strategists correctly and fully recognize that Peoria is an equally important battlespace as Anbar. It’s like the tree in the forest thing: if no one knows Anbar is successful, is Anbar really successful?
It’s not too much to ask that Pres. Bush overcome whatever obstacles in order to ensure that the nation understands the enemy and the threat and the danger. That’s his job.
upi.comhttp://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/07/telegraph-swj-best-fiction-awa-1/
An example. An outright, bold faced lie put forward by some traditional journalists. It is refuted by a qualified person but that refutation will never see the light of day outside of milblogs.
The media is hostile. The only adaptation is to realize that they are deserving of exactly the same level of force as applied to the jihadi they support.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/09/bush_lays_out_case_for_staying_in_iraq/4836/
The POTUS makes the case but it will get next to no play in the mainstream. This has been the case.
I do not agree with you. You appear to dwell in an alternate reality where mechanisms to broadcast information to the nation can be created with the wave of a magic wand.
The mechanism for such work has been preempted by our enemy or is manned by idiots and nieve fools. There is nothing to adapt to, nothing to adapt with.
That this is the fault of anyone other than the industry of journalism is part of the spin of that industry of journalism, has been for at least 1 full generation.
Last time. It is this simple. The industry of journalism exists only and solely for the purpose of disseminating information. That is the only reason for its existence. During a time of war, it belongs to the war effort and it’s duty is to help the citizen keep up with what’s going on.
It has failed. Failed miserably and consistently. There is no excuse and when the rage finally breaks, there will be no forgiveness.
I tend towards the harsh end of the spectrum on this issue and I do not expect many, if any, to agree with me.
For the record, I do not wish for this issue to devolve into open conflict and/or bloodletting, but such does appear to be the end game to which we are heading.
I do realize and appreciate that there are many honest, honorable and integrity driven individuals in the industry. But as a whole, the damage done by the profession of journalism to this nation while at war is incalculable. The industry will, in all probability, be treated as a entity and all involved will be judged by the same jury.
The fact that men and women felt required to start milblogs and political blogs to counter an out of control media is as shining an indictment as can be had. The fact that private citizens feel compelled to go on their own dime to get embedded to cover what the msm refuses to cover is part of the symptoms of a dysfunctional and diseased profession.
This industry gets no over site and has no accountability to anyone. That shouldn’t be a problem and a free press can not operate otherwise. But, once such an unrestrained and unaccountable profession becomes harmful to the people that it’s intended to support, then it has become necessary to reform. There will be a reformation, the only question is, will it come from inside out? or be imposed from the outside in?
Reuters photoshops during the fight in Lebanon.
Taliban press releases used as foundation for story designed to force the USMC SOG team out of Afghanistan.
Time using the propaganda video of a known insurgent to force the imprisonment and trial of US Marines for a battle at Haditha.
The gross over exposure of the Abu Ghraib incident.
The constant outing of US efforts to counter terrorist intel and operations.
This is just a short list.
People better wake the hell up and grab a cup of clue. The day is coming where there will be zero tolerance of betrayal by those employed in the industry of journalism. Their only hope of survival, as individuals and a functioning free press is to clean themselves up and start purging themselves of any and all that see information as something only to be manipulated for partisan gain or a tool to be turned to use in destroying or humiliating the US.
If they dont figure this out for themselves, others will figure it out for them. That’s how this sort of thing always works out in the end.
http://rokdrop.com/2007/07/26/responding-to-the-bridge-at-no-gun-ri/
The Bridge at No Gun Ri, Korea. Predates My Lai, for an example of an atrocity that didn’t happen- Complete with it’s own Munchausen. Also ties in to the Beauchamp/TNR scandal because it’s also another illustration of agenda ‘journalism’ at it’s finest.
I’ll attempt a fair sum up:
I think ways can be found to overcome obstacles and more effectively get truth to Peoria. You think I am unrealistic and … airheaded, maybe.
I think we each understand the other’s opinion.
gcotharn,
Any means the US government tries to use to get the message out – television, radio, even the internet – is immediately dismissed as “American propaganda,” regardless of whether it is true or not. Like it or not, the MSM, and the MSM alone, is perceived as being a source of truthful information, and it’s because they act exclusively in the best interests of the enemies of freedom and democracy.
“Why would they say such things about the people that protect their freedoms, if they were not true?” is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. But the answer is no longer, “because they are true,” but rather, “because the people who would take away their freedoms have offered them a better deal: they get to be the aristocrats of a dark age, rather than mere citizens of a golden age.”
Tatterdemalian,
That last part of you post is terrifying, but I fear it is the dark truth.
The left chooses to be a “powerful” slave (dhimmi) instead of an equal in freedom.
As Samual Adams said of such people:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
Tatterdamalian brings us, finally, back to the point of neo’s post: what was Beauchamp’s motivation!
Answers:
-he gets to be an aristocrat!
-he gets attention
-he gets career advancement as a writer
my add on answers:
-he gets to be moral and righteous and ethical and heroic b/c he helped “change the world” via helping ending OIF, and helping change all people’s attitudes about war for all time.
-he gets the girl! Never underestimate this simple motivation, nor what man will do to accomplish it!
The “therapizing”, indeed, of America. This is the audience you seek Neo, quondam “lifelong (?)Democrat”?
An leftist insertion of larger numbers of anti war soldiers into Iraq would also be taking dead aim at the American public and the American Congress.
This is why I didn’t support a draft when Uncle JImbo at blackfive wanted one.
I knew the Left and some of the things they would do and I knew we were not prepared to counter it. We still aren’t. They still are the ones on the offensive and get to decide where and when to strike us, while we can only react.
I had some general idea that the Leftists would try to infiltrate the military because with a draft, the sons and daughters of powerful people will be placed into positions of leadership. Scott is just a private. Think of the damage that could be done by a senior officer engaging in falsifying war crimes or indulging in war crimes while blaming others.
The Left is starting at the bottom because that is all that is available to them. Their numbers are limited. However, surge in large numbers via a draft and watch what happens when the Left organizes them against the military tradition and command chain.
Most people think of the draft as a cure or weapon against the Islamic Jihad. But I’m not thinking solely of the foreign enemies of the US Constitution, but also the domestic enemies as well.
The msm is THE mechanism responsible for such dissemination.
Mechanisms require resources. Shut off the logistics and the “mechanism” dies on the vine.
The industry has refused to do its war time duty.
The President already has the Constitutional powers designed to make the industry do its duty. He just has to use them.
There is no state controlled mechanism to cover this loss of fidelity, honor and integrity by our traditional news distributors.
The US Constitution doesn’t have a state controlled mechanism to allow dictators to buy our reporters, but Sadddam achieved it nonetheless. With power you can achieve many things that would never have been possible.
There has been endless streams of information useful toward exactly what the commenter says should have been done.
I don’t see it as information, but the need for propaganda. Different things.
Those who have a proclivity or tendency to fall quickly to the propaganda of our enemy will often point to the POTUS as at fault.
That raises the question of, “if they are so easy to fall to the enemy, what gives them the power to resist us?”
So, I have to go the long way around, sorry.
Put the url in your name link and then refer to it. You know, the blank space under “email”.
Maybe too large and wordy. I get that way sometimes.
Neo’s page blocks certain words and drug names. When you try to post something with those words, it just deletes the post with no error message.
Ymar,
I hadn’t considered those particular ramifications from a military draft. Interesting. I do think either a draft into the military, or a volunteer infiltration into the military, of significant numbers of hardened anti-war persons, would directly conquer the U.S. public and the U.S. Congress. In this regard, Beauchamp has shown the way(perhaps accidentally, and despite his failure to remain a legitimate voice). Our nation cannot strongly support a volunteer Army who wins every single engagement. We would not hold up under the above referenced circumstances.
“the left revers the generalization over and above reasoned examination of the generalization”
Bye bye, Miss American Pie. Today, Irony died.
dear neo
If you want to write for New Republic, which was a cheerleader for the war by the way, why don’t you try to get some honest discussion going? I visit your blog because you are literate, but soon discover an echo chamber of caricaturing anti-liberals where one after another your true believers leap over each other to denounce anyone who doesn’t believe in them as sycophantic, psychotic, and treasonous.
I think you could write for a national magazine, but at this point only one of those where the preacher speaks only to the choir.
This report and the commentary ignore one fact: the history of war, even the history of a Just War where the victors write the history, shows men committing acts of atrocity. Wars are often necessary, but they are never clean. I am certain that you have read Prince Andrei’s opinions of war in Tolstoy’s masterful War and Peace. He was not a liberal (he was no Pierre) and he recognized war as the hateful, dehumanizing event it always turns out to be.
This note is too long already, but consider the inherent fascism behind your correspondent’s suggestion that TELLING us about Haditha (which the Marines are prosecuting and have offered immunity to a marine for his testimony against the alleged perpetrators, despite the dismissal of charges against some who apparently did do nothing wrong) and what the writer claims was an overblown Abu Grahb which makes most people who see the photos ashamed to be human the way pornography does, will lead to shutting down those voices.
It is sad that people spend so much time telling each other how bad “liberals” are. It is equally, and more tragic to me personally when people on my side do the same thing, but this blog has its full compliment of “You think that was bad Neo, you should consider this…” where the “this” is how bad liberals are. It is disgusting actually.
Tomj: This note is too long already,…
… and it still hasn’t, and doesn’t, address the point of neo’s post. Before going on about how sad others are, Tommy, take a look in a mirror, and ask yourself why it might be that you can’t allow yourself even to see the possibility that people might want to lie about or otherwise distort their experience of war. Everyone knows that war can do bad things to people. The devastating point about Beauchamp, however, is that war had nothing to do with it — he was twisted enough to mock disfigured people before he experienced combat at all, as he was later forced to admit. And the point about TNR is that they were too eager to pander to a war-weary faction to care very much about checking. Or maybe you feel that bringing a critical intelligence to bear upon one’s favored narratives is “inherent fascism” too?
Pingback:baldilocks
Ellen’s never been to this site, has she? I have yet to see any of the women here intimidated by anyone or anything.
Take Sally for instance: Buffalo Tom’s “angry white male(ness)” just got a smackdown.
And he’s done his bit to further the image of the American soldier as demented war criminal–although, as with much of history, it’s repeating itself “the first time as tragedy [My Lai], the second as farce.”
Without Beauchamp, the tale of Iraq thus far includes multiple documented instances of rape, murder, torture, theft and the deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians, along with millions of displaced. It’s telling that you choose to reach back 39 years to Mai Lai for an example of soldiers behaving badly.
Beauchamp’s accounts, if true, hardly register when compared to the rest. And if not true, they’re utterly insignificant when compared to the falsehoods and deceptions that brought us into this war.
“bringing a critical intelligence to bear upon one’s favored narratives”, indeed.
cleek: “bringing a critical intelligence to bear upon one’s favored narratives”, indeed. etc.
Oh, indeed. For example, you list a series of bad things that have characterized the “tale of Iraq” — but those bad things have characterized every war, just or unjust — e.g., the Civil War, that ended slavery in America, and WW2, that ended Nazi totalitarianism and genocide. If you’re a pacifist, of course, you’d no doubt prefer slavery and genocide, not to mention state-supported terrorism, to war, no matter how nicely it’s conducted (and the rest of us are free to make our own judgments regarding your moral stature). If you’re not a pacifist, on the other hand, then choosing to emphasize atrocities on one side merely makes you a propagandist for the other side. Which is it, cleek?
Uh, Tom from Buffalo . . .
Prince Andrei never actually observed a war because he is a fictional character. He is not real. His opinions were made up.
Check it out.
Without Beauchamp, the tale of Iraq thus far includes multiple documented instances of rape, murder, torture, theft and the deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians, along with millions of displaced.
And to think they use chemical fertilizers in Kansas, when they have primo material like this that could double the crop.
The Left knows nothing about the history of war and they know nothing about reasoned arguments. Everything they claim about is a lie.
That particular con game of theirs is getting quite old.
As for infiltration of the military via Leftists, that has been ongoing for quite awhile now. Scott just reached a very high level publication. The funny thing is, these people do it on their own initiative and not because of party orders. Imagine what can happen when the Left gets organized like Code Pink with their “rallies” and “marches”.
These people will prompt and instigate war crimes if they get promised enough rewards. That is how it is. It is how “anti-war” marches turn violent. You have a few agent provocateurs start throwing stuff and stoking up the crowd, then every body is hitting everybody.
Also, with the draft increased the likelyhood of John Kerries. People that go into there for political power, which are usually people that are already connected to Washington DC one way or another. This then creates collaboration and provides lines of communication between officers in the United States military more loyal to the politicians in DC than they are to the Army chain of command or the US Constitution. That is not just a simple short term risk.
In order for the Left to win, they must destroy or subvert the US military. Because the US military is what is preventing the Left from destroying the US Constitution. One of the pillars at least. They have already kicked ROTC off their indoctrination camps.
The Left isn’t our friend, they aren’t loyal and patriotic citizens, nor are they the loyal opposition. It doesn’t even matter that most of the people that voted for Kerry had the bes tof intentions or better intentions than evil. After all, how many people does it take to make a protest into a violent one? How many terrorists do you need to radicalize and Talibanize a nation? How many suicide bombings do you need before people are afraid to go outside?
Not much.
And to think they use chemical fertilizers in Kansas, when they have primo material like this that could double the crop.
OB took out the trash with that line.
“This report and the commentary ignore one fact: the history of war, even the history of a Just War where the victors write the history, shows men committing acts of atrocity.”
Indeed, this war, like any other has seen atrocities occur. UNLIKE most other wars in history, it would seem the rate of atrocity (by our men) is as low, or lower than the rate of atrocity by men back here on our own streets at home. And we are more likely to catch and punish them. So far as I can tell, the incidents we’ve seen in this war amount to the garden variety murder and rape you find in any major city. Abu Ghraib? Police brutality, at most. I know you believe that happens here too. So what’s your argument, exactly?
If you are trying to say that we should shudder at going to war because atrocity might be committed, well, it’s unconvincing. So long as there are human endeavors, there will be atrocity. We’ve gotten really good at reducing it, and punishing it when it occurs in the military. How about some credit for that?
Promethea-
“Uh, Tom from Buffalo . . .
Prince Andrei never actually observed a war because he is a fictional character. He is not real. His opinions were made up.”
In Tom’s defense, the author that invented Prince Andrei, Leo Tolstoy, did see combat, against the Turks. Not that that helps Tom’s argument any.
Why would he want to give his enemies credit for being better than his side?
TomJ — is there a thoughtful internet conversation about Iraq where there is BETTER discussion than on this blog? Maybe Michael Totten? (But w/o Neo, there’s less there than there was…which is one big reason I’m here.)
I guess after looking at the skulls of the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and seeing pictures of Nazi death camps, the Abu Ghraib pictures aren’t so horrible to me. How many prisoners had permanent physical injury? Torture less that is still criminal, just as misdemeanors are, but not as bad as felonies.
I am sick sick sick at the thought of the USA allowing the continuing genocide in Darfur. But of course, the biased liberal media has more pictures of Abu Ghraib “Stanford Prison Experiment” level of perversity than the Arab Muslims murdering and raping and burning villages.
I don’t think liberals are so bad (not when I really think about), but I do think the terrorist murderers are really really bad. Like those that cut off the head of Daniel Pearl (not quite in the movie, I read — haven’t seen).
Americans are imperfect, and some are even bad — but a basically good yet imperfect system is far far better then a basically evil anti-human rights system. Which wins if it’s not fought against.
And the anti-war folk don’t want to fight a war against evil.
But Neo, I wanted to suggest the breast beating “status” can also be seen in children of divorced and complicated families. I remember the early 60s when I was a child of very few divorced parents, even fewer with the father & stepmother getting custody. Multiple divorces and re-marriages, and then new marriages … I usually won the “most complicated (messed up) family” competitions. But only later did I realize I doing classic one-upmanship.
It’s just that today, my “America is evil” story show more evil than yours is the status game too many liberals are playing.