The Second Chance.
I'm as surprised as you are, honestly.
By Moe Lane Posted in War — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
When I heard that Drudge had the goods on the Scott Beauchamp / TNR story, my internal response to the other Exalted Ones of RedState involved the words "sharpening my knife" and "giggling." I am, after all, a person of very silly demeanor who lost his tolerance for the antiwar movement a long time ago - and there is some pleasure involved in demonstrating to our esteemed colleagues on the Other Side on how, precisely, one does an anti-TNR campaign right. It sounded like fun: I'd let Jeff write his piece, and then I'd go to town. Oddly enough, when it came time to do so... nothing could come together. I frowned at the screen for a while, fed the baby, and assumed that I just wasn't on that night.
This was fortunate, because it gave me the chance to read Michael Yon before I wrote anything that I'd later have to retract.
First, give Yon some money. Then, read the overly-modest Jeff Emanuel's piece. Then, read on.
If you're not reading Mr. Yon, you should. His piece is hard to excerpt, but I'll give it a shot. About the controversy:
Some months ago, a soldier in Baghdad wrote a piece on the way war can degrade the morals and affect the judgment of combat soldiers. His story was published at face-value in The New Republic magazine. In it the soldier wrote terrible things about his unit, making the article sensational.
...
The soldier’s name was Beauchamp. He’d tried to hide his identity, but poor Beauchamp had no idea that the blog world would get on his trail and tree him like a coon. Beauchamp crawled up to the top of that tree, looked down into the snarling spotlight, and suddenly knew he was caught. His simple mask was no more effective than a coon’s, and that in itself might provide a little insight into how deeply Beauchamp had thought this all through. In any case, he was up in that tree, surrounded by hounds who’d done this plenty of times, yet always found this part exciting. The hunters would have written the last sentence if the choice was up to them.
Speaking as the smallest hound (puppy following along, really) in this chase - yup. Cheerfully. Without a doubt, it was fun. Just like it was fun to help yank the mask off of Jesse MacBeth, and just like it was fun to watch people make Dan Rather look foolish by doing the research that he wouldn't, and thus like it was fun all the other times we found that pulling on one loose thread would unravel a whole narrative tapestry. It will undoubtedly keep on being fun, too. Just so we're clear.
Yon goes on to talk about how, while he was in Baghdad, he had the opportunity to meet Private Beauchamp's battalion commander (LTC George Glaze). LTC Glaze made it clear to Yon that in his opinion Beauchamp had learned his lesson, was trying to make amends for his behavior, and had chosen to stick it out rather than leave. Glaze's willingness to stand by one of his soldiers (while not trying to diminish the soldier's mistakes) clearly impressed Yon, who wrote:
Lapses of judgment are bound to happen, and accountability is critical, but that’s not the same thing as pulling out the hanging rope every time a soldier makes a mistake.
Beauchamp is young; under pressure he made a dumb mistake. In fact, he has not always been an ideal soldier. But to his credit, the young soldier decided to stay, and he is serving tonight in a dangerous part of Baghdad. He might well be seriously injured or killed here, and he knows it. He could have quit, but he did not. He faced his peers. I can only imagine the cold shoulders, and worse, he must have gotten. He could have left the unit, but LTC Glaze told me that Beauchamp wanted to stay and make it right. Whatever price he has to pay, he is paying it.
It is a strong temptation to shrug and simply not care. A very strong temptation, in fact. But there are times when you need to step back and give someone the chance to prove that they have reformed their ways. People closer to the scene than I am, and whose judgment I can respect, have decided that this is one of those times. I cannot speak for the others on this site who reported on this, but I will give Private Scott Beauchamp that chance, and I hope that he takes it, for his own pride's sake.
(pause)
But as for The New Republic...
(very evil smile)
Woof, I say. Woof.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Drudge Report finishes the job of sending TNR down by the mast — Comments (11) »
The Second Chance. 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
is necessary to redeem his honor. If the rest of his unit accepts him and is protective of him, then that's good enough of a recommendation for me. As for TNR, it is my hope and prayer for them that they have enough scorn and ridicule heaped upon them that Foer is forced to resign in disgrace and that the rest of them who were behind this can't get jobs writing menus for sandwich shops.
I'm not so ready to live and let live. Didn't Beauchamp continue to try and defend his position even after he was found out, compounding his original "lapse of judgement"? And wasn't there ample evidence that he considered himself some kind of undercover future author rather than a legitimate warrior? Didn't he lie repeatedly?
If he was willing once to go in harm's way in exchange for future gains bashing troops as an author, why should we expect he'll be any less motivated now?
He went into a war zone willingly for selfish reasons once. How do you know he doesn't have another selfish reason to go back in now, and to lie about it? Couldn't this just be damage control?
absentee
...(this) and let me know if it changes your mind at all. I'm sincere about this, and you've got to know that *I* of all people would not be saying things like this if I didn't wholeheartedly believe them.
The people who share the trenches with him in this war have not held this mistake against him. If they, who know him better than anybody, have made that choice, then it would be an exceedingly poor decision for those who condemned him on the basis of their support for America’s troops not to follow suit.
We were all ready enough to jump on him when he was caught in a lie. If his own comrades are willing to forgive him, because after all, they are the ones he besmirched, then who are we to continue to condemn him.
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he pr
... Just as I read everything you write, including your emails.
I got into some trouble in the Marine Corps once. Not like this, but let me say that punching the wrong person while on active duty is no small matter. I suffered the consequences of my actions. As rightly I should have. After I paid the price it was over. I was still a Marine, by God, and I was still treated as one. But the fact is, I paid for what I did.
Considering where they are, and the media sensitivity of the story, I can understand his command not punishing him.
But actions have consequences. His actions have had dramatic consequences. For many, it seems, other than himself.
I believe that the soldiers with him, and his commanding officer, are making the right decision. They are making not only a merciful choice, but a practical one.
I, on the other hand, lack the same incentives. Some transgressions can't be taken back. They can't be made up for with an "oops". When I see Mr. Beauchamp on national television making a real retraction, I may feel differently. When I hear, from Mr. Beauchamp, an apology to this country, perhaps I will feel more forgiving. But right now, I do not feel thus compelled. If he has done those things, I have not seen them, though I'd like to.
HOWEVER, because of you and Moe, and because I greatly respect your opinions, I will personally stop calling for his blood. I can't forgive and forget, but I do know how to shut up. It isn't much, as I am not one with a platform, and am of no consequence, but I'll do it just the same. Not for him. For you and Moe, and for his comrades in arms.
And, I might add, for now.
absentee
Feel free to continue in whatever matter seems best to you. I apologize for not assuming that you had thought the matter through as much as you clearly have.
For goodness sake do not apologize to me! What have you done wrong to me? Nothing! I read what you write because I value your opinion. I'm a fan. That's why I'll leave Beauchamp alone.
I must be a worse communicator than I thought if you felt I was due apologies. For that, I apologize to you!
absentee
Just kidding!
My 2-cents. I am the same place where absentee is. Pretty much exactly.
Forgive him? No, not yet. I can appreciate Scott is doing his best do do right, and that is a choice that takes great courage considering where and with whom he is staying. That is great, and in its way, heart-warming. I laud his courage and his desire to make things right. I also am warmed by the response of his fellows, and his command structure.
But I am not ready to forgive him because (1) he did unspeakable damage, and he did it to our troops -- PATRIOTS -- who daily put their lives on the line (and some die), most of whom JOINED the military knowing they'd go to Iraq and risk dying for their patriotism. He did it by providing FALSE fodder to the WORST of the traitor-class in America.
and (2) like absentee says, there is more he can -- and should -- do: a public retraction and apology in a venue that encompasses the same sphere where he did his damage.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
...one thing bothers me - a lot. In his previous writings, he said that the main reason he joined the service was to give some credibility to his future work. I may not be able to find it, but I read it and I remember it. I think I even posted on it.
So again, in deference to Jeff, who has been there, I will lay off. But the damage has been done, and he cannot take that back. Also, I will always wonder about the motivation behind his conversion, and I have not read about any apology. He was quite willing and able to file the original stories. I have not heard nor read about any retraction, so I wonder what the hold-up is now.
I am done.
...from the TNR/Beauchamp phone transcript:
Peter Scoblic (exec editor of TNR): What are you going to do after this job? Are you staying in the Army? ...you're not going to be able to write anymore after this...you know that, right? (emphasis added)Beauchamp: ...I don't really care at this point. That's not...what is important to me...all I really care about is the job I'm doing here. I really don't care about the media at this point. I'm sorry. I know it may sound insane from your point of view, but all I care about right now and I realize that's the one thing I've learned from all of ths is basically I mean, I ... what's important to me right now is taking care of the people to the left and right of me.
...Basically I'm not saying anything about the stories to anyone anymore. ...I have nothing but...the utmost respect and love for the people I'm serving with and this is really...there's been a lot of heartache for them.
Again, I believe him. Nobody else has to, but I think I understand what he's going through, and I wish the best for him. Nobody is obligated to follow my lead, of course :-)
Interesting, and off the subject slightly:
"Peter Scoblic (exec editor of TNR): What are you going to do after this job? Are you staying in the Army? ...you're not going to be able to write anymore after this...you know that, right?"
Sounds a little like "you'll never work in this town again" to me, and also a tacit admission that the stories were factually challenged.
Anyway, I have recently read some thought provoking words on grace. Seems like Beauchamp's fellow soldiers already get it, and I should follow their (and your) lead. And it seems like he may actually mean what he says.
By the way - you may want to get in touch with Rush. He had a few words for Beauchamp today on his show.
I don't know Beauchamp, am not even familiar with his unit. One thing I do know is Army leadership. Most of the people that come into the Army are young. 18-19 years old without a whole lot of life experience. Even worse, they are as mucha product of our culture as any teenager you will find on any street anywhere in the USA.
The job then is to make a soldier out of that "kid". It starts in Basic Training, where the soldier is taught exactly that, the basics of soldiering. That's where the Drill Sergeants start the work of transformation. Then comes AIT(where you learn your Army "job"). Again, Drill Sergeants work on the young soldier until they are fully qualified to do the tasks that will be asked of them.
Although a soldier finished with Basic and AIT is a soldier, quite probably a Private First Class, and fully qualified on paper, the training has just begun.
While I was in Iraq, my unit had some screw ups. PFC's and Specialists that just couldn't seem to get it right. However, in the Army, screw ups or not, they are family. More than that, as an NCO, they are my responsibility. I'm not even sure that I can communicate this to anyone that has never been an NCO or a Commander in the military.
I never gave up on a single one of my soldiers, even though there were actions that were in my opinion as bad as this, if very different in kind. One of the guys realistically could have ended up at Ft. Leavenworth, instead is looking at going to the board to get his own stripes now, and when I left the unit he gave me a plaque thanking me for the leadership, including the discipline, that I put into his life.
If Beauchamp's Commander is sticking up for him now, that means the NCO's believe in him, and you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but heaven help you if you try to fool your Noncommisioned Officer.
(and, incidently a former NCO) your comments are what might be expected from an outstanding NCO, but . . .
I am conflicted . . .
If all of this can be written off as simply the prank of a young, misguided soldier; albiet a good soldier. I have to ask: Which is it? A young, misguided soldier? Or, a good soldier? If both - which prevails?
Have a care with your answer because whichever way it comes out - either someone in uniform has sadly failed this man; or vice versa.
"Oh. I AM sorry, and I really, really wish I hadn't done that and promise I will never, EVER do it again!" is not a defense under the UCMJ - which is exactly where his benevolent commander should place this issue.
THAT is the best way, in my view, to resolve my conflict in this situation. The consequences of his actions are much larger than he, or his unit, or even the Army; - and THAT is how they should be viewed, regardless of how contrite this man might be (in reality - or not).
De Opresso Liber
...is lying to one's journal, or publishing slanderous fables on the web, actionable under UCMJ? To the extent, that is, they didn't compromise OpSec? I'm not sure that peddling fish stories to witless, credulous, seditious American Libtards is Ft Leavenworth-y, if the Pvt hasn't lied under oath.
I'll defer to the judgment of his commanders and squad-mates, and save the bile for the kiddies at TNR.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Beauchamp has not always been a "good soldier." That's been acknowledged by many in his chain of command. Heck, he might not be one now. But what is up to the investigating officer (an O-4) to recommend, and to his Battalion Commander (an O-5) to decide is what punishment he deserves, and into that decision will play the question of whether he can be a good soldier.
The BC has made his decision. End of story. He knows his soldier better than we do, and he has, IMO, just earned a very large chit with the rest of his men, who know that he will have their back and look out for them when (not if) they screw up, rather than simply being vindictive.
It's a win-win: the soldiers get a man who owes them (and is in their debt), Beauchamp gets a second lease on life, and the BC gets men who, while they might not appreciate the perceived lenience, now know that he'll be in their corner when it's their skin on the line.
Your arguments are compelling.
But . . .
What has the BC done to disuade additional similar conduct?
What about the OTHER companies in the battalion? What do those men feel about defamation of character? etc. These questions might be asked about opinions all the way up the line - even to the CHofS, Army?
This guy didn't just slander his own companions. He slandered all soldiers. The Army. Think of the time and effort it took to come to the bottom of this episode. The costs? The view of the public regarding our ops in Iraq.
JE,we might argue this topic until the lights go out, but there is one iron law this mutt broke - and you are as aware of it as I. It is the absolute foundation of this or any other Army:
D-I-S-C-I-P-L-I-N-E.
If we can shoot some poor kid for falling asleep on guard in the wee hours after fighting a war all day and night - this mutt should at least get his wrist slapped - officially.
To me his acts are those of monumental disrespect. They represent an appalling lack of discipline:Self-discipline and military discipline. His BC should be launched from the toe of his commander's boot, and told to live up to his expectations as a commander, and oath as an officer.
It's great that the BC's actions find favor with his troops. That would come in handy for him if BCs were seeking reelection.
But, since we aren't electing our officers in the Army (not yet, anyway), this BC should move to instill and/or maintain the discipline of his unit; not his own image. That might sting a little bit, but - hell - that's why Army officers get those big bucks (heh!)
De Opresso Liber
No BC worth his salt is going to make a call like that without getting some perspective from his Sergeant Major, who is going to going to get his information primarily from first line leaders, that is the NCOs that know Beauchamp and work with him. So, if the BC is giving him a chance, it almost certainly means that his NCOs have come to the conclusion that he can be made into a productive member of the unit.
My point was, and remains, that a large number of people are "bad soldiers" at some point early in their careers, and that with the right leadership, most can be turned around.
Granted, if Beauchamp was my soldier, he'd know up front that his life is going to be very difficult for some time to come, but he would also know that I am there to make him the best soldier he can be.
isn't the must important aspect, right now in a time of war, will the TROOPS respect, and TRUST him?
For whatever reason, he is being forgiven by command....could be a host of reasons...but, would you as a grunt trust this guy with your life? Right now...forgiveness can takes years...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
If his leadership(including the SGT's and CPL's that work directly with him), give him their trust, that means a lot. If it is a solid unit, that means almost everything.
If there was a resentment problem, or a trust issue among the other guys, the leadership would not leave him in that place.
Think of it like your brother or sister, they hit you and lie about it to mom, but when the going gets tough, you stand together. The Army is as much and more than family on the unit level.
I expect he will be ok, especially if they feel he was manipulated by TNR and his wife. In that case, they will see him more as a wounded friend then as a backstabber.
it say a lot that is good about the Army, and young men.
I have not served, but it only seems logical that fellow troops would have the , " fine, but keep the SOB away from me" attitude.
It almost seems akin to putting a snitch back in genpop...in any event, I hope things work out for all of them.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
I can't speak for "The Army", only for what I have seen and for the culture that I have been a part of. What I said is exactly how it would have been in my unit.
I have been both a NCO and a veteran's counselor.
As a NCO, I never recommended a single soldier for punishment, either company level or Court Martial. I handled the matter. That was part of my job. I took care, personally, of the "problem children" in my squad, and later, in my platoon.
As a veteran's counselor, I personally represented over 1,100 individuals before the Discharge Review Boards of the Army, Navy/Marines and Air Force and supervised the work of three other individuals who represented about 3,000 others.
In general, I would have to say that, with a few exceptions, those who received "bad discharges" had worked hard to earn those discharges but, in most of those cases, the offense was "young and stupid" rather than "malicious behavior."
I agree with Jeff, give this stupid, young kid a second chance.
It's at the heart of my religion, though I don't always live up to the standard.
If the people who were most injured by his actions have forgiven him, who am I to not follow suit?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
...who, apparently, was heavily invested in his TNR writings and who, for a fact, no longer works at TNR. Somehow I don't see Ms. Reeve taking well to life in Enlisted Men's housing.
NCOs are alot more forgiving than ex-wives.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Keep the Long Knives out for TNR. Their editorial staff should have known better, especially considering their years and the enduring nature of their publication. They deserve to have gasoline continue to be poured on as they go down in flames.
But, in my opinion, it's time to lay off of Scott Thomas Beauchamp. I explain at this link just why that is, and why it's important.
In short: it's very important indeed.