July 27, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:I should note that I don't feel like I have any horse in the TNR race, as it were. The least convincing rebuttal of Private Beauchamp's allegations is that "American soldiers are good people!". But on the other hand, the least convincing defense is "atrocities happen in war!" Both can be true, and irrelevant to the question of whether Private Scott Beauchamp is an incredible jerk, with enough other incredible jers around him that he managed to get away with some incredibly awful things. It seems ludicrous that the main subject of argument seems to be whether Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt, or Franklin Foer and his editors, are deluded losers keeping themselves willfully ignorant of wartime conditions in order to advance their ideological agenda.
So let's get it out of the way. The Iraq war was a bad idea. Undoubtedly, American soldiers are doing things that are either immoral, or disgusting, or both, because that's what happens when you give people guns and tanks and power, and the UCMJ can only reel that sort of thing in so far. American soldiers in World War II used to boil Japanese skulls and send them to their girlfiends, and yes, we were still the good guys in that one. War is hell, she said with unabashed clicheness.
I'm interested--and frankly not that interested; it was a throwaway post--only in the question of whether TNR got taken, not in exploring what this says about some larger culture war. As far as I'm concerned, if they got taken, they got taken for the obvious reason that there is a limit on one's ability to fact check; that there is an even greater limit on the ability to fact-check anonymous sources; and that the editors of TNR are very far from Iraq and don't know what it's like there. Whether they got taken, which is my bet, or whether it turns out that I am wrong and there is no reason to doubt the stories, that will not actually change anything about Iraq. The vituperative focus of both sides on the imagined nastiness of the other, is both beside the point, and says more about the culture war here than anything in the actual stories, or the decision to run them.
And that still won't make Iraq be successful.
But TNR's defenders seem to think that it is a defense to say, "Well, everyone who's talking about this is evil; and also, bad things happen in war." Both could be true, and wouldn't tell us whether *these* bad things happen. Some bad things mostly don't happen in war (at least, not recreationally): squads don't all start, say, cutting each other's genitals off in the rec hall. So the question is, are these particular things likely things to have happened? There are decent arguments, technical, psychological, and practical, that they weren't: Bradleys are too slow to chase dogs with, helmets are too tight to fit extraneous item's like a child's skull, soldiers rarely make fun of their own wounded, much less one who might turn out to be the woman who could put you on latrine duty for the rest of your tour, and soldiers that badly wounded are usually discharged so why would he have been uncertain about her identity? Those aren't idle questions; they need an answer better than "I friggin' loathe Michelle Malkin."
More generally, I think a moderate tone is a good idea in these things. Otherwise, you run a high risk of looking like a jerk when you have to admit you're wrong; or a real jerk when you pretend the whole thing never happened. Posts on what embarassing morons your opponents will be bitterly regretted if, say, it turns out that there is no such contractor at Beauchamp's base; as will fulminations about left-wing lies if Beauchamp's stories are corroborated at his court martial. Safer to say that your best judgement lies one way or another, and leave it at that.
But as I say, my passing interest in the entire thing, which is animated almost entirely by the fact that I have spied some of the editors involved at cocktail parties, is not very great; somewhere below the neighbour's termite infestation, but above my urgent need for curtain rods and bookshelves. This will almost certainly be my last post on the subject.
Posted by Jane Galt at July 27, 2007 12:07 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksHaving taken the over (21 posts) on that thread, I find your timing suspicious. I'm reporting you to the National Blogging Association commish.
"Girlfiends?" I've dated some pretty scary women, but never any that bad! *grin*
The Iraq war was a bad idea.
Wrong. Saddam swung from a rope, and his odious sons are elsewise worm food. That makes the war a good idea, right there.
Oh, and you wanna talk bad faith? Here's an excerpt from an EMailer who wants America to leave Iraq because he wants to see more casulaties:
"I hope every camel-jockey in the sh*thole gets blown to bits, and every gallon of their blood poured on Cheney's hands."
Uh-huh...
Please don't make this your last post on this subject; your meta-analysis is far more interesting than any of the "substantive" analyses to date, and far more meaningful.
Mention also that one of the bad things that happen in war is the invention of propaganda stories. Granted, in past wars they've usually been invented about the other side, but... what's that you say? Hmm, good point.
Perhaps, at some point in the future, you would speculate as to why editors at American periodicals want to "Tokyo Rose" the American public.
Is it due to non-American influence of stringers, reporters, and even editors? Is it just due to liberal humanist ideology, or merely to spite a conservative republican administration, regardless of longer term effects on America as a nation?
True, the Beauchamp affair won't make the Iraq War wrong or right. However, the reasons to suspect that his stories are concocted are quite strong, as many Iraqi vets have explained, and well beyond vague claims that American soldiers would never do such things.
If so, it does matter--like Rathergate--that a prominent media organ is printing concocted stories that just happen to match its agenda opposing the war, and in the process slandering those who are fighting and damaging their morale.
I don't see how these things can be ignored, whatever one thinks about the Iraq War.
Wait, what about the larger issue of gatekeeper bias in the monosource media being exposed by Citizen experts?
I'm certainly not tired of that narrative yet.
Actually, it's no excuse for the NR that it would have been difficult to fact-check the Scott Thomas stories. As the PR guy from the unit pointed out, whenever the US military reports any sort of GOOD news in Iraq, the press insist they need all kinds of corroboration before they'll report it at all, if at all. The stories weren't checked because NR wanted them to be true and didn't care if they weren't.
Quite disgusting.
"More generally, I think a moderate tone is a good idea in these things. Otherwise, you run a high risk of looking like a jerk when you have to admit you're wrong; or a real jerk when you pretend the whole thing never happened."
As is said, the history books are barren in the "Great Moderates in History" chapters...And besides, Consevatives generally moderate and genial tone is how the left wing of this country has become the unhinged, dangerous voice it is currently. And before the snipers start with the "AHA! He lashes out at Democrats whilst attempting to take the high road," let it be known that your behaviors are what has led to my current state of incivility, not the other way around. As soon as the norm of discourse is as disgraceful as DKos, MyDD, DU, Hamsher, etc on, say, Instapundit, HotAir, LGF or any other larger right leaning blog you may have a point, but the lame attempts to delegitimize Rightys is a propaganda bluff and foolish to the thinking man.
No, Ms. Galt, you are tremendously wrong with your malignant "moderation" in this matter. Pure and simple this was another contrived attempt by the left to trash our military and as such is not to be taken with this immoderate "moderate" call.
As to "looking foolish" if Beauchamp is proven truthful? I have a moral compass and a history-derived sense of true & false...I'll take the risk to stand up for out military and against TNR & Beauchamp 100%. And I will be proven right. By failing to have the sense of who all the parties involved truly are and thereby being able to discern who is lying you will have made a "real jerk" of only yourself...
I'll also add to RMc's "Iraq was a bad war" comment.
Does everyone have such short memories that they forget that the administration prior to this one told us over and over that Saddam had WMD? George W. Bush went to overthrow Saddam because he AND a whole bunch of Democrats felt he was liable to give WMD to the Al Queda.
Check it out at Snopes. Refresh you memories!
"Bradleys are too slow to chase dogs with..."
According to Wiki, a Bradley can hit 41 mph, and I was able to find something else that claims roughly 20 seconds time from 0 - 30mph. A whippet or a grayhound can reach speeds of 35 - 40 mph. Maybe 45 mph.
I didn't read any of the TNR reports, so I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but I'm not so sure your assertion is correct, Jane.
Personally, I am grateful that they did not use WMD's on our troops, so, to the degree that the left wants to feel justified, whatever, have at it, but when they try to use it as a club to delegitimize the war, I draw the line.
I would like to hear of a war that was a good idea, when compared to actions that could have taken place in the years leading up to said war that would have avoided said war, I will await that list with eagerness.
Intellectuals have short memories and short attention spans. And appearances to keep up when their colleagues snort about Iraq War, the.
Dear Michael Yon et al.: Megan McArdle believes that you all are rubes. Go home and take all those troops, especially those without esteemed degrees in economics and whatnot, even those on elective third or fourth deployments because they believe in the goddamned mission, with you.
Anything else we need to get out of the way?
Joel Mackey, I gathered the reason Saddam Hussein didn't use WMD on American troops was because of quite clear back-channel assurances of retaliation in kind, up to and including tactical nuclear strikes. Roaring the tank engines loudly while quietly keeping a finger near the red button is quite effective against third-world ogres.
Very interesting, Jane...
You write in this post that "The Iraq war was a bad idea." No waffling there, no sir. And, I should note, in direct contradiction with the people who have the most experience in the matter.
But in your very next post, you defend journalism in general because they can't possibly catch all the small details. You follow that up with the arrogant "would you, tank driver, like to fact check one of my articles on bankruptcy and try to pick out what the key details are?" remark.
Well damn, Jane, I guess we listen to experts more in some cases than others, don't we? Funny how when it's your field, experts are so important, yet when it's the war we're talking about, you know better than Gen. Patraeus, his staff, and thousands of vets who're on their 3rd or 4th tour over there.
I've read your blog since very nearly its start, and this is probably the most annoyed I've ever been with your work. Not that one little reader means anything, but I had to say something.
NOTE: I'm not at all saying we should bow down to the generals when assessing the war, but when I consider opinions about the subject, I know where I'll rank your thoughts in importance. Just following your advice, even if you don't.
That's kind of funny. Turns out I've been an investment, tax and economics reporter and I've been a tank commander. I'm also an Iraq war veteran (03-04)
An M1 tank can outrun any dog. In a straight line race. But actually catch and run over a dog? Hell, no.
Tanks and Bradleys aren't nimble enough. They're liable to throw a track. Then the driver gets to fix the track, and that's a pain in the ass.
Then there's this small matter:
1.) The moojies make a common practice of placing IEDs within the carcasses of dead animals and putting them on the road, and 2.) EVERYONE in Iraq knows this.
No driver in his right mind would EVER go out of his way to drive directly over any kind of visible road debris. Ever. His TC would have his ass if anyone ever tried, not that anyone would try.
Beauchamp's claims in this regard simply do not pass the credulity test.
I do believe that every tank or Bradley unit that has ever fired a night table on Knox, Riley or Hood has at least one gunner nicknamed "The Deerslayer," though.
well rational objectivist, you are certainly welcome to your opinions.
You say a moderate tone is the best approach. To many, your post is decidedly NOT moderate. What you, in the NY/DC metroplex area, insulated from much of the reality of war, I'm sure your tone is very reasoned. At least you have an opinion and you defend it very well, at least most of the time.
Falkoyn - Unless you are actually in Iraq, you should really be quiet. People in the NY/DC "metroplex area" know the reality of war much better than almost everyone in the rest of the country - you do remember which cities got hit on 9/11, right?
Tequila - I hear you loud and clear. I had three friends in the north tower, and I was at their funeral service.
That said, I have been to the Gulf and environs. I have also lived in NYC, and in an around DC. If you've been to the theater (and I don't mean on Broadway), you would know that the average civvy, even a journalist, still has absolutely no idea what the realities of a military war are about. The Metroplex 'war,' if you will, is more of a cops and robbers situation, where you don't really expect to have your ass blown off by several hundreds pounds of hiX.
I resent the hell out of people who believe that only those who've lived/killed in whatever war or environs they were in, thinking they can be the only ones who have a legitimate say concerning that topic. They may have a more schooled opinion in a specific situation, but it doesn't invalidate Aunt Emma's opinion from Bergen county.
So, Tequila, what unit were you in when you were in Iraq?
About 3 decades ago, a entire generation of American soldiers were labeled a bunch of drug and alcohol addict, attrocity committing, pity cases.
People did not stand up against the loud mouth falsifiers and propagandists for our enemies, so their charges stuck for a long time. Look at much of popular material on the Vietnam war and you might believe they've still stuck, in spite of scholarship proving otherwise.
Indeed, one of the most well-konwn liars almost won the presidency a few years ago, if you remember. "Slaughtered in a manner resembling Genghis Khan" - some moderation, some precedent.
Of all the milibloggers TNR could have chosen for their Baghdad Diaries, they managed to find the one who routinely witnessed poetic displays of cruelty and inhumanity. No one denies war is hell, but Beauchamp's rhetorical flights were so sensational, it should surprise no one, least of all the Glass magazine, that it would receive a lot of blowback. The fact that a) TNR chose Beauchamp for their magazine and b) were not prepared for the blowback is another great example of why I dropped my subscription years ago. It is rank amateurism running a major political magazine that used to have a great name. Even if and when Beauchamp's stories are found to be composites based on true events, it just demonstrates that TNR is happy to print whatever fits their pre-existing stereotypes and builds their metanarrative. Never mind the facts, in the mind of TNR and its defenders, it will still remain true.
Hmmmm.
@ Jane Galt
"As far as I'm concerned, if they got taken, they got taken for the obvious reason that there is a limit on one's ability to fact check;"
There is NO LIMIT to any journalist's ability to fact-check by asking a milblogger for a reference to someone in the serving military who would be in a position to know.
Period.
Milbloggers have been begging to connect journalists to members in the military, or retired from, who could provide fact-checking abilities.
That you cannot think of this shows a serious flaw in you.
". . . they got taken for the obvious reason that there is a limit on one's ability to fact check;"
I don't think so.
First, I think that what's most at the core of the problem for many of us -- certainly for me -- is that the TNR piece was highly inflammatory by any reasoned standards. Was there anything in that article that reflected well on the US military ? Anything ? Bueller ?
Don't you think that before publishing such a piece, some significant measure of fact-checking would be prudent ? Even vital ?
Second, if TNR had run this past anyone with significant military creds, it would have raised flags. An experienced, reasoned military veteran of operations would have said something like
"Hmm, Jane, I'm not so sure about this one. There's a few too many improbabilities in here -- you should check it out carefully before publishing it. I mean, it could all be true, but it's rather unlikely when you put it all together, if you know what I mean."
You see, no one thing in the account is absolutely impossible, but (as with Lord Munchausen), when you string them all together, you get
p(a) = 0.05
p(b) = 0.02
p(c) = 0.03
thus
p(a+b+c) = 0.05 * 0.02 * 0.03 = 0.00003
(apologies if my notation is in error -- been a while)
Put another way, it "doesn't pass the smell test." That doesn't mean you spike the story, but it does mean you do plenty of due diligence to protect your brand.
When a publication published this inflammatory AND improbably an account without evidence other than one individual's word, it's very problematic if not emblematic. Exactly what brand image are they trying for ?
Jane, the critical question is: would the TNR have performed more or less fact-checking on a story describing how our troops were winning the war against Al Qaeda, to the uproarious approval of the Iraqis?
We all know that Foer would have had his own ass in Iraq grilling all and sundry about that one, assuming he didn't spike the story out of hand.
That's the point: the assymetry of fact-checking. Editorial parsimony doesn't wash as an explanation.
This will almost certainly be my last post on the subject.
Even better, why don't you make it your last post altogether?
The world would be far better off without the voice of a sad, disingenuous right wing shill like you.
...who made her audience hopping mad with her position on immigration, oddly enough. Megan, please ban anyone who gratuitously insults you! It won't hurt your nice girl cred at all.
I agree with this post, particularly that "a moderate tone is a good idea in these things. Otherwise, you run a high risk of looking like a jerk...". I'd strongly recommend that the author read it again, carefully, in light of:
In his own special category of wrong is Kieran Healy, who vindicates an old professor's precept that "sociologists rush in where angels fear to tread."
"American soldiers in World War II used to boil Japanese skulls and send them to their girlfiends, and yes, we were still the good guys in that one."
That is an easy throwaway line but ignores the fact that American GI's in the Pacific theatre went in expecting the Japanese to follow the "rules of war". (By and large, our fight against the Germans did follow those rules, though the Germans and Russians didn't.) Instead, they found an enemy that saw a vanquished foe as inferior and undeserving of decent treatment. After seeing their medics killed by Japanese soldiers pretending to be dead; after seeing buddies killed by Japanese who would pretend to surrender and drop grenades from their armpits to kill those who came to accept their surrender, after finding the dead bodies of their comrades mutilated - well, yea, some Americans did go overboard - to survive they had to fight on a level that went beyond bestial. I would strongly suggest you read "Flags of Our Fathers" and discover what the Japanese did to the best friend of John Bradley on Iwo Jima. And if you can stomach it, read "The Rape of Nanking" to see what kind of mindset the Japanese had over captured populations. Then find me any proof that any large number (like division-size) of United States military personnel EVER behaved, en masse, like the Japanese military in WWII.
I enjoy your blog but I think you missed it with this particular example.
"American soldiers in World War II used to boil Japanese skulls and send them to their girlfiends, and yes, we were still the good guys in that one."
From what I can tell, this line is based on a picture in Life magazine of a woman writing a letter to her boyfriend who sent her a skull from the Pacific Theater which she had on her desk. I’m not sure how one soldier (singular) translates into multiple soldiers unless Jane is assuming that because 0ne did than more did it.
Comments are Closed.