Why active soldiers don't speak out against war

Perhaps this is why we don't hear more active duty soldiers speak out against the war....

[quote]
Dissent on the Front

Newsweek

Sept. 3, 2007 issue - Are there consequences for soldiers who write publicly, and prominently, against the war? Eight are finding out. "We have failed on every promise," wrote seven 82nd Airborne paratroopers in a stark dispatch from Baghdad that was the lead Sunday op-ed in The New York Times Aug. 19. Superiors at Fort Bragg were surprised—but not professors at Marquette, where Sp. Buddhika Jayamaha, whose name led the op-ed, had studied. One, Barrett McCormick, said he e-mailed with "BJ" recently. "He was very curious about what was going to happen," he says. "No one knows what the repercussions will be."

There may not be any. Army policies permit soldiers to write or blog as long as they don't compromise operational security (e.g., troop locations) or challenge civilian leadership. "Until it is established that they violated any regulations, they will not be punished just for their views," said Army spokesman Maj. Tom Earnhardt.

The future is murkier for Pvt. Scott Beauchamp, whose shocking tales in The New Republic—including a soldier wearing a fragment of a child's skull—were disputed by bloggers, notably at The Weekly Standard. The influential magazine, which in 1998 was hurt badly by a writer's serial fabrications, said in two editor's notes it had re-reported Beauchamp's work and stood by it, except for one error: one anecdote took place in Kuwait, not Iraq.

But the editors have had no contact with Beauchamp in weeks, and efforts to corroborate his work have stalled. His wife, Elspeth Reeve, a fact-checker at the magazine, said his cell phone and laptop had been confiscated; that he is permitted to speak only to her, his mother and a lawyer, and that some calls are supervised. But the Army said Beauchamp has no restrictions on his communications. (Attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.)

The New Republic is waiting to talk to Beauchamp, leaving its critics unchallenged. "It's maddening," says editor Franklin Foer. How long can an editor ask readers to wait? "It's important to try to be thorough ... If it takes time, there's nothing we can do about it." 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.

link.... Soldiers: Dissent on the Front - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com

[Detector]

Take the source into consideration.

I don't think people like SGT-T or my nephews fill obligated to lie about their thoughts on Iraq to us. I tend to believe people in the field rather than the media. Call me silly

Originally Posted by Detector

Take the source into consideration.

I don't think people like SGT-T or my nephews fill obligated to lie about their thoughts on Iraq to us. I tend to believe people in the field rather than the media. Call me silly

From what I found, this is the source....

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 discrete 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

[Highwayman]

Beauchamp Recants

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."...

The Weekly Standard

[Detector]

I rest my case!

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

http://www.weeklystandard.com

Don't gloat too much,

David Fiderer: Proof that the "Debunking" of the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Story was a Conspiracy to Defraud - Media on The Huffington Post

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

Don't gloat too much,

David Fiderer: Proof that the "Debunking" of the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Story was a Conspiracy to Defraud - Media on The Huffington Post

The HUFFINGTON POST????!?!?! COME ON......lol.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

Don't gloat too much,

David Fiderer: Proof that the "Debunking" of the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Story was a Conspiracy to Defraud - Media on The Huffington Post

OoD, I’m surprised that someone with some degree of sense would use Huff Po as a resource. But just to humor you I went there and read the column. I see no reference that the writer attempted to contact the military for a first hand report. Instead he writes this;

Once again, an abuse of government power was used to malign and punish the target, Beauchamp, and to make the trivial element seem important. The Army, which has insufficient time and resources to investigate negligent homicides of Iraqi civilians by U.S. military, conducted an "investigation" over these pranks, pressured Beauchamp to sign statements under duress, and prevented Beauchamp from contacting anyone in the outside world. The Army announced that its investigation had discredited Beauchamp's reporting. The Army announcement also lent a veneer of legitimacy to the entire disinformation campaign, enabling it to cross over into mainstream media coverage.

If the Army pressured Beauchamp to sign anything under duress and then prevented him from contacting the outside world how could he know that’s what happened?

He goes on to site the FOX News Watch of August 11,2007;

Here's a smoking gun. Eric Burns, Jane Hall, Jim Pinkerton and Cal Thomas all profess to be journalists who comment on media coverage of major issues. Before the program Fox News Watch on August 11, 2007, they know the topics to be discussed and they come prepared. This show has a staff that would access the latest information from The New Republic, which was published online the day before the show. There is no way they could profess to knowledgably speak on this topic and yet be ignorant of such information.

He goes on to quote the transcript of the show. I pulled show’s transcript from the FOX News website and found it to be only a partial transcript and did not include the quoted comments.

FOXNews.com - Transcript: 'FOX News Watch,' August 11, 2007 - FOX News Watch

So the question becomes where did he get it and can we trust his unnamed source? What really struck me odd and caused me to take a closer look was his failure to mention the other member of the panel, Neil Gabler. Gabler’s name appears in the transcript posted on the FOX site so he must have been there that night. Why would the writer not mention him? Could it be that Gabler is a fire-breathing, Bush bashing lefty and so he got a pass on the broad smear of the show’s panel? Where were Gabler’s remarks because Gabler would certainly have went to The New Republic site to defend them if he had an opportunity to counter the remarks of a conservative. I watch the show whenever I can and Gabler repeats far left talking points every chance he gets. Could it be that even he had no defense for The New Republic?

Fiderer shows me nothing to convince me he has any creditability.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

Fiderer shows me nothing to convince me he has any creditability.

Here in lies the rub Highway, The weekly standard? give me a break. Fiderer laid out his argument, the standard on the other hand gets the only Army comment without someone to attribute it to? Give me a break. All the while the only attributable quote is from the soldier himself standing behind what was written. And it's an essay, not a news report.

What I find more interesting is 1-this thread ended up down here and 2-an active duty soldier had the gall to paint his/her experience of this little excercise in nation building in a light different than what some think they should. I guess I need to go search youtube or some such and post a link to whoever that person was who stated the dudes doing the New York Times op/ed piece were "hurting their moral authority" or something along those lines.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

...the standard on the other hand gets the only Army comment without someone to attribute it to? Give me a break...

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

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

I’ve been down this road before;

Slandering the troops

I’ve read some of Beauchamp’s accounts and various other discussions about it. The general consensus is that much of what Beauchamp claims could simply not occur. Like the claim that a soldier was running down dogs with a Bradley.

One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book.

Maybe one of our military guys could comment on sneaking up on a dog with a whisper quiet Bradley and then making a sharp turn to hit it. I’ve read comments by veterans about breaking convoy formation putting the convoy in danger from snipers and RPG’s. They’re on alert for IED’s and snipers in windows. Putting others in danger to kill a dog for sport doesn’t sound to me like something that’s going to happen much more than once.

Or Beauchamp’s account of changing a flat tire on a Humvee in the middle of raw sewage. Why would someone stop in the middle of raw sewage to change a run-flat tire?

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.