milblog1archives.jpg
PDA
Shop
Contact
YouTube Videos
To Mudville
Join MilBlogs
Someone You Should Know
MilBlogs


milblogsa1.jpg
Prev | List | Random | Next
Join
Powered by RingSurf!

Authors



























Ground Support

SoA_proudsupporter.gif

soldiersangels.jpg

AnySoldierLogo.jpg

topmain.jpg

books_for_soldiers.gif

foundation_heroesfund02.jpg

fallen pats.jpg

fisherhouse.jpg

hopevil.jpg

opac.jpg

Adopt a platoon.jpg

Homes for our troops.jpg

WWproject.jpg

heromiles200.jpg

operation morale.jpg

cbrdg.jpg

op-give.jpg

mamo.jpg

Sponsors

Archives
June 2008

S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

Monthly Archives []


Feed me:

Sponsors

Roll Call

miblog-conf.jpg

MilBlog Ring Members
Random 20 Blogroll
[]

Angels / Supporting
our Troops Blogroll
[]

Friends of MilBlogs
Random 20 Blogroll
[]

The Fine Print

The Milblogs site has multiple authors. Unless otherwise credited, the opinions expressed are those of the specific author, and not the official position of any other contributor or any organization to which they belong, to include the United States Department of Defense or any of its subordinate components.

Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1) the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2) in the public domain, with free use granted for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.

Original content copyright © 2006 - 2008 by the respective authors. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.

Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com

« October 24, 2007 | Main | October 26, 2007 »

October 25, 2007

Leaks and Recriminations

[Dadmanly]

Someone yesterday leaked documents of interviews between “Shock Troops” diarist Scott Thomas Beauchamp, editorial and legal representatives of The New Republic (TNR), as well as excerpts from the official Army investigation into Beauchamp’s conduct in publishing his “stories” at TNR.

As soon as these leaked documents appeared at the Drudge Report, conservative bloggers with long-time interest in the controversy and scandal jumped all over the story. Many bloggers on the right echoed Matt Drudge’s claim – apparently since retracted – that the documents constituted evidence of a complete retraction by Beauchamp, and included an admission by Beauchamp that he had fabricated the hoariest details of his discredited accounts.

Left leaning bloggers, either supportive of TNR or highly suspicious that MILBLOGGER and other objections to the original diary entries were unfounded or politically motivated, likewise either assailed the new leak of documents or dismissed them as either forgeries or not containing what Drudge and other critics claimed.

No and yes, yes and no. From both sides of the argument.

I do a full analysis over at Dadmanly, but here are my conclusions:

What the documents do show is that the Army investigation gathered a rather full and incriminating collection of evidence that Beauchamp fabricated the warp and woof of his accounts. He spun elaborate war stories out of shreds of experience, and manufactured the grittier and more outrageous elements of his accounts – in particular, the ones that have so infuriated his critics in and of the military.

The interviews in particular reveal some clues that may explain why this scandal occurred, and why it continues to play out the way it has. Beauchamp’s Squad Leader sits in on the interview with Foer and Scoblic. Rather than intimidating Beauchamp, as Juan Cole and others are suggesting, it seems a lot more likely that Beauchamp really is trying to make amends for his fable-telling, following his Commander’s instructions to seek approval from his immediate supervisor, and just trying to concentrate on doing his job.

For one thing, Foer and Scoblic give Beauchamp all kinds of opportunity to throw them a bone and back up his stories, which he refuses to do. They also put a lot of pressure on him to give them cover, and even use the emotional (and perhaps financial) pressure implied in suggesting that Beauchamp’s wife, still a TNR employee, really wants him to back TNR up.

By my admittedly jaundiced reading, I think Foer and Scoblic are a lot more intimidating in these interviews than Beauchamp’s squad leader (only a Staff Sergeant E-6) and a Specialist from the PAO. If Beauchamp’s unit wanted intimidation, Beauchamp’s Command Sergeant Major (CSM), First Sergeant, or at least Platoon Sergeant would be there, along with the actual PAO, a Major or thereabouts, not a junior enlisted soldier. (Was he the one who would later scribe the interview?)

I think Beauchamp, being a kid with dreams beyond his (at least current) capabilities, screwed up in something he thought he could play at, not reaizing the immediate and explosive effect it would have on his immediate unit and fellow soldiers. I think he knows now. I think he sincerely wants to get away from the whole mess, salvage what honor and respect he can from his comrades by concentrating on the job at hand. Oh, and staying away from the media, or any attempt to revisit his daydreams of being a writer.


Posted at 2142Z

Re: Not so Moving Pictures

[Greyhawk]

Audiences Reject Iraq War — At The Box Office:

It doesn't matter how many Oscar winners are in front of or behind the camera — audiences are proving to be conscientious objectors when it comes to this fall's surge of antiwar and anti-Bush films.

Both "In the Valley of Elah" and, more recently, "Rendition" drew minuscule crowds upon their release, which doesn't bode well for the ongoing stream of films critical of the Iraq war and the Bush administration's wider war on terror.

"Rendition," which features three Oscar winners in key roles, grossed $4.1 million over the weekend in 2,250 screens for a ninth-place finish. A re-release of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" beat it, and it's 14 years old.


Posted at 1913Z | Comments (1)

Bobby we hardly Knew Ye

[Greyhawk]

Bobby Calvan has "disappeared" his entire web site. And the post about harrassing a guard in the green zone might not have been the reason why.

Since the site has gone, I can't comment on the accuracy of what this commenter at LGF says - but apparently Calvan had confessed to shaping stories to fit his own version of events:

...the story that was already being composed in my mind. I was after vivid descriptions that could, if warranted, paint a scene of chaos, anger and grief.
<...>
Jenan, a Shiite member of our staff of local reporters, went to work to track down witnesses. She spoke to at least two by telephone. But I pressured her for more. I wanted an interview with a doctor. I wanted quotes from some of the injured, maybe even words that captured the anger and grief of the family of the dead.
More evidence of Calvan's arrogance here.

Update: I agree with Charles :

...even though he’s now pulled the entire thing offline, what it revealed about mainstream media reeporting from Iraq is actually quite important.
The fact that he's deleted the whole thing now that he's been "discovered" is the most telling bit of evidence of all.


Posted at 1708Z | Comments (2)

Bobby Calvan Unites The World

[Greyhawk]

Watch as 124 (as of this posting) commenters rip a reporter a well-deserved new ass.

By the way, this dork says the Ugandan security troops have "the warmth of armed robots". For the record, Ugandan troops are great. I love those guys. (But then again, I treat them like fellow human beings.)

Update: okay, he made his post go away.

(Yes, I’m obviously new to blogging. Somtimes I share too much. The blogosphere has reacted and pointed out my folly. Yes, I can be pushy. I can also be wrong. I’v'e edited this post — and have shut down the comment feature.)
As a GI in Iraq, please let me say "welcome to Baghdad, Bobby. And welcome to the blogosphere, too. Here's your post in full:


Posted at 0654Z | Comments (7)

Re: Guard/Fires

[Greyhawk]

Don't miss this. (Also featuring a return of the education benefits issue - apparently California doesn't offer much.)


Posted at 0502Z

On Numbers

[Greyhawk]

U.S. troop fatalities in Iraq, from the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index:

2003cas.jpg


Can you see the steady upward trend of the past four years?

If so, you're seeing an optical illusion.

The deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq (thus far) was 2004, and the numbers actually decreased slightly in each of the following two years.

Actual numbers as reported by Brookings:

2004: 848
2005: 846
2006: 823

If you squint at the graph, you'll also see that December, 2006, was (at the time) the third highest monthly total of the war. So even as 2006 closed out as the second consecutive year with fewer deaths than the previous the media could ignore it and instead write headlines about that monthly total.

I'll repeat something I said about monthly totals at that time:

The variability of the numbers are chaotic, graphed they resemble nothing more than a saw's edge. Anyone who touts the peaks or valleys as representative is a fool. The media looks only at the peaks and declares them "trends". When the death toll plunged (predictably) after this year's Ramadan surge the media ignored it. When it rose again in the past month the death toll became headline worthy again. When the annual totals turned out to be lower this year it was reported under a headline about the monthly total being almost as high as it was back during my first tour.
Notice I said "peaks or valleys". All around the blogosphere - or at least half of the blogosphere - folks are celebrating the fact that American military deaths in Iraq for October have fallen nearly to pre-Mary Mapes levels. (That last bit was hardly fair in that the majority of the celebrants probably have no clue what the Bloody Mary reference means.)

That's certainly something to celebrate, but if recent history is any indication, next month will probably see an upturn (a bus crash would do it). And even if numbers continue to fall, this year will eclipse 2004 as the deadliest of the war. At that point, an amazing thing will probably happen - the headline writers will ignore the monthly totals* and discover the annual. Increases are newsworthy, decreases are not.


*And likely ignore the increase in combat troops, too.


Posted at 0433Z | Comments (2)

Not particularly Moving Pictures

[Greyhawk]

Hubris defined:

Tom Cruise underplayed the politics, leaving it to Robert Redford to lash out against the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at the center of "Lions for Lambs," for which the pair held their first presser Tuesday at the Rome Film Festival.

Redford, helmer and protag of the anti-war thriller -- which world-preemed Monday as a gala in London, -- came out strongly against the Bush administration, as might be expected by one of Hollywood's longtime liberals.

"Our country has hit a point where we have lost so much," he said. "We have lost lives, we've lost sacred freedoms, we've lost financial stability; we've lost our position of respect on the world stage."

Cruise, kept largely above the political fray, merely expressing hope that the talky multi-strand pic in which he plays a power-hungry Republican senator "will challenge and engage an audience, so that they can come out and have dialogue."

He was more comfortable chastising Hollywood, praising Redford as someone who "really broke with the studio system and made the type of pictures he wanted to make, in the face of the studios."

And yes, you read it right: "against the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq".

Yeah, it takes guts to boldly produce one of the umpteen Hollywood anti-war movies that will likely BOMB this year.

But from Redford's perspective America probably has lost "a position of respect on the world's stage". After all, the critically acclaimed "In the Valley of Elah" grossed a mere $461,296 overseas. That's not going to cut it, and with ignorant hilljack Americans ponying up a paltry (in Hollywood terms) $6,593,995 domestic blaming Bush seems an obvious excuse.

Will all these upcoming steamers* TANK as swiftly as "Valley of Elah"? Who knows - some might make a KILLING. But there will likely be an umpteen-way tie for best picture at the Oscars next year.

Update: Glenn Reynolds:

"THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE PEOPLE THAT STARTED THIS. THE PROBLEM'S WITH US." That's a Robert Redford breakout line from the trailer to his new war-on-terror movie that just appeared on my TV.


Posted at 0404Z | Comments (2)

Re: Re: Pondering Victory

[Greyhawk]

Bingo.

And now here's the last line of my post, written then but saved until now.

"Victory in Iraq will be even less identifiable, but prove unsatisfactory in some similar yet unforeseeable manner."

B6, we gotta do lunch if you're ever in the neighborhood.


Posted at 0402Z

« October 24, 2007 | Main | October 26, 2007 »