Why active soldiers don't speak out against war

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

What do you mean “…without someone to attribute it to?” Did you miss it?

I read the alledged quote, too bad an unreliable source posted it. Where as the following statement in the orignal post in this thread is readily verifiable.

"Army spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl said its inquiry is ongoing at the unit level. Beauchamp can't be punished for his views, but he faces the possibility of an administrative, or noncriminal, charge if the Army determines he lied in his writings"

hmm, if the Army determines he lied in his writings?

Originally Posted by Highwayman

You should be getting the idea. Beauchamp was making statements that didn’t wash with too many folks. The New Republic was swearing it was all true. They even referred to serious breeches of conduct as “pranks”. And yes, I do get upset when someone is making up crap that makes our military look bad.

You and others don't like what was written. So the writer has to be attacked ? I don't read that website nor rarely ge the parent magazine so I guess I will remain blissfully unaware of what was actually printed in total.

But until the accounts are proven to be false, and they have not been proven to be false, despite whatever fantasy the Weekly Standard came up with. The author at the moment, and this is not in dispute, is a member of the active duty military and not an Onion nor Fox newswriter wanna be-yet. But thank you for helping to prove the point that soldiers not writing the "official line" are to attacked as liars, malcontents, traiters, etc.

[SGT T.]

Look, I AM NOT on the Army's public affairs payroll, and I feel like I should point out a few facts about this whole mess. First of all, for the dogs, driving over a dog in a Bradley would be next to impossible. That is a tracked vehicle that makes a TON of noise, and its not really agile enough to hit a running dog while moving. Not to mention the extreme discomfort that would be felt by all the troops inside if the driver were to "hold the right/left" at 30mph. You might even flip the thing trying that maneuver. In other news..

The rest of the stuff could be true. Really. I mean, most PVT's are young, 18-20 and for a kid that young sitting at a DFAC (thats Army for Dinning Facility) with other kids and seeing a woman with a burns and scars on her face, yeah they are probably going to say something. Welcome to adolescence. And what was the other one... oh yeah! Playing with a skull of an Iraqi baby. I find it hard to believe. Most of the time when we find remains, we call the Iraqi Police and they deal with it. (Some of us think they are quick to respond to those calls because they put them there in the first place, but I digress). Anyway, when we find a body we minimize contact with it, doing only the necessary identification stuff and then we leave it alone. I'm not saying that this didn't happen, it IS possible, I will admit that.

But the troop wrote a sworn statement. That kinda turns it all to poo right there. If he said it didn't happen, then swore to it, under oath, then thats got to be believable. The military didn't attack him, he wasn't placed on restriction, or even given an article 15. What DID happen is they they took away his laptop for a while, and ordered him to stop talking to the media because he was under investigation. Does that mean he didn't have internet access? Probably not. Does that mean that he couldn't call home? No. He still got his two 15 min phone calls a week. Now I am sure his chain of command will be rough on him for a while, probably pulling guard duty more than usual, but thats the price you pay for upsetting the chain of command. If I called my 1SG and told him I was talking to the press about what I did outside the wire, I could expect the same treatment, even if I had done nothing wrong, because now he had to take time out of his day to investigate, instead of doing his job of taking care of his soldiers.

The accounts have been proven false because he wrote a sworn statement saying they were false. So who are you going to believe, him or...him?

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by SGT T.

The accounts have been proven false because he wrote a sworn statement saying they were false. So who are you going to believe, him or...him?

The Weekly Standard says they've been proven false, the Army hasn't. I don't know who to believe and that includes the Weekly Standard. I find it hard to believe if the Army had that statement then it would be all over the press wires.

Then again isn't this the same Army that covered up the, I hope accidental shooting, of it's recruiting poster child?

[jeezeweeze]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

Then again isn't this the same Army that covered up the, I hope accidental shooting, of it's recruiting poster child?

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" (Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke)

Seems to me like it was a failure to "cover up"

[Detector]

If Pvt. Beauchamp would have said everything was going great do you think the media would have bothered? No. They(media) looks for that person willing to give a story, true or not, that fits what they want to report.

And by preferring to hear the story from the source I'm not talking as printed/repeated by the media.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Detector

If Pvt. Beauchamp would have said everything was going great do you think the media would have bothered? No. They(media) looks for that person willing to give a story, true or not, that fits what they want to report.

And by preferring to hear the story from the source I'm not talking as printed/repeated by the media.

Come on, you're smarter than that. There are numerous accounts out there from the active duty military, pro and con. The only thing they have in common is they get relayed, printed, and repeated by some form of the media.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

I read the alledged quote, too bad an unreliable source posted it...

Do you consider The New York Times an unreliable source?

An Army investigation into the Baghdad Diarist, a soldier in Iraq who wrote anonymous columns for The New Republic, has concluded that the sometimes shockingly cruel reports were false.

“We are not going into the details of the investigation,” Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. “The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.”

And this interesting tidbit;

Private Beauchamp is married to a reporter-researcher at the magazine, Elspeth Reeve.

Army Says Soldier’s Articles for Magazine Were False - New York Times


How about the Columbia Tribune?

Major Steven Lamb, an Army spokesman, sent several e-mails to the Tribune this week, including one that said Beauchamp’s allegations "were found to be false." He added that Beauchamp’s platoon and company were interviewed, and "no one could substantiate the claims he made."

Lamb declined to elaborate further on the investigation.

Magazine, military clash over MU alum’s reports

Army disputes MU alum’s war claims

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

Do you consider The New York Times an unreliable source?

I consider the NY Times to be a lazy source these days.

Read your posted quotes again and the entire NY Times article. It seems they can't even get consistent when reporting quotes. When the Army issues the official version then they issue the official version. Until nothing has been proven or disproved.

BTW, the soldier's spousal working relationship was disclosed to the rest of the world when his identity was revealed.

The bigger issue remains, if you don't like the message then attack the messenger.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

I consider the NY Times to be a lazy source these days.

Read your posted quotes again and the entire NY Times article. It seems they can't even get consistent when reporting quotes. When the Army issues the official version then they issue the official version. Until nothing has been proven or disproved.

BTW, the soldier's spousal working relationship was disclosed to the rest of the world when his identity was revealed.

The bigger issue remains, if you don't like the message then attack the messenger.

When the message reeks of BS one does have a tendency to question all facets.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

"Army spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl said its inquiry is ongoing at the unit level. Beauchamp can't be punished for his views, but he faces the possibility of an administrative, or noncriminal, charge if the Army determines he lied in his writings"

hmm, if the Army determines he lied in his writings?

Outdated report.

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

You and others don't like what was written. So the writer has to be attacked ? I don't read that website nor rarely ge the parent magazine so I guess I will remain blissfully unaware of what was actually printed in total....

He’s being “attacked” as you call it because he made false statements, not because he wrote something that some folks didn’t like. If you actually did your homework you would know that much of what he wrote wasn’t passing the smell test and that’s why it was checked out.

Like the disfigured woman at FOB Falcon that he claimed to have made fun of. Seems that no one at FOB Falcon remembered ever seeing the woman that was described. Suddenly the story changed to have occurred in Kuwait and it was downhill from there.

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

The Weekly Standard says they've been proven false, the Army hasn't. I don't know who to believe and that includes the Weekly Standard. I find it hard to believe if the Army had that statement then it would be all over the press wires.

So Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad is chopped liver?

It is over the press wires. Just because you haven’t noticed doesn’t make it not so.

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

Read your posted quotes again and the entire NY Times article. It seems they can't even get consistent when reporting quotes. When the Army issues the official version then they issue the official version. Until nothing has been proven or disproved.

Actually I read it twice before I posted it because I thought the same thing until I reread it more closely. You might want to try it.

I think Maj. Lamb is close enough to an official.

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

BTW, the soldier's spousal working relationship was disclosed to the rest of the world when his identity was revealed.

The greater point is that it wasn’t disclosed until TNR was forced to disclose it after the fact.