 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
My Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.
My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.
It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.
--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp
TNR Editors have this reponse:
As we've noted in this space, some have questioned details that appeared in the Diarist "Shock Troops," published under the pseudonym Scott Thomas. According to Major Kirk Luedeke, a public affairs officer at Forward Operating Base Falcon, a formal military investigation has also been launched into the incidents described in the piece.Although the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published, we have decided to go back and, to the extent possible, re-report every detail. This process takes considerable time, as the primary subjects are on another continent, with intermittent access to phones and email. Thus far we've found nothing to disprove the facts in the article; we will release the full results of our search when it is completed.
I'm sure Greyhawk will have something to add. When he has time to pull away from the duties of war.
Greyhawk:
It's really sad to see someone claim they have ultimate moral authority to insult women and kill dogs without anyone questioning their character just because they've been to Iraq.
Update -- More on that thought:
It's sad to think that anyone of any age or rank thinks he has absolute moral authority to kill dogs and insult women without having his character impuned by non-Iraq veterans. But one thing is worth keeping in mind - this is a Private in the Army, a young guy, perhaps prone to believe the more fabulous tales told by his comrades in arms. Or perhaps not. Whatever the case, it's pretty effing petty behavior on the part of The New Republic to set him up like this. In this entire situation they strike me as the biggest dirt bags of all. Then again, perhaps he and his buddies are the criminal thugs he claims they are, and TNR has done us all a favor.Believe me, Pvt Beauchamp will have a lot of "explaining" to do to his chain of command. They get to sort things out from here.
"Next: The persecution begins"
Badger Forward reports from Iraq:
I have verified that there is a Private Beuachamp listed on AKO and he is listed in the listed unit.No one has ever denied the plausibility of the events per se; we have questioned where the outside forces that constrain poor behavior by Soldiers were. I am sure he revealed himself because the detective work that was done by numerous people narrowed the unit down. JD Johannes at Outside the Wire correctly identified the unit before Pvt. Thomas' admission. As a Commander I imagine what the last few days have been like for that unit Commander. It cannot have been easy.
<...>
Bravo for standing up, finally. Now accept the consequence of your actions.
