If you read conservative blogs, you’ve probably heard quite a bit about “Scott Thomas,” a pseudonym a U.S. soldier in Iraq has used while writing a series of pieces about the war for The New Republic. The controversy that erupted over the last couple of weeks has been startling.
For those of you who don’t keep up with the other end of the blogosphere, let me back up. “Scott Thomas” began publishing items earlier this year, offering painful accounts of what it’s like serving in Iraq, culturally, personally, and psychologically. “Scott’s” early pieces garnered very little attention from conservatives — who didn’t mind personal anecdotes about U.S. soldiers trying to befriend Iraqis and combating terrorists.
Two weeks ago, however, “Scott” had a more disconcerting piece, documenting instances in which a small group of U.S. troops had engaged in offensive behavior.
I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs…. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver’s hatch. 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. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn’t have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.
I didn’t see the third kill, but I heard about it over the radio. Everyone was laughing, nearly rolling with laughter. I approached the private after the mission and asked him about it.
“So, you killed a few dogs today,” I said skeptically.
“Hell yeah, I did. It’s like hunting in Iraq!” he said, shaking with laughter.
“Did you run over dogs before the war, back in Indiana?” I asked him.
“No,” he replied, and looked at me curiously. Almost as if the question itself was in poor taste.
Yes, some soldiers misbehave in wartime. It’s a shame, but it happens, and given the pressure they’re under, I find it hard to condemn them. The TNR articles weren’t, after all, describing war crimes.
But while “Scott’s” pieces were initially ignored, this one drew the ire of the conservative movement.
Far-right blogs erupted. Bill Kristol cited the TNR article as evidence that liberals hate the military. There was no shortage of conservatives who argued that “Scott Thomas” was a fraud and the events he described didn’t occur. (In the course of their pushback, they inadvertently confirmed one of “Scott Thomas'” anecdotes.)
The conservative response was surprisingly weak and haphazard. As Yglesias noted today, “Scott’s” critics even ended up debunking claims that he didn’t make.
Nevertheless, the blowback led the author to reveal his identity today.
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 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.
This hasn’t improved the situation; in fact, the right is now pursuing Beauchamp with renewed vigor. Malkin has gone so far as to post personal information about Beauchamp. On National Review, they seem to be having a contest to see who can hate this soldier the most.
Are all over Beauchamp’s anecdotes accurate? Frankly, I have no idea, but I’ve seen very little evidence that raises doubts about his veracity. But the controversy has grown into something far bigger and more important.
A U.S. soldier was in the right’s good graces until he strayed from the party line and noted the personal toll the war has taken on him and his compatriots. For that, he’s been smeared, rather viciously. Yglesias concluded:
All these people need to stop. They need to take a deep breath. They need to apologize to the people at TNR who’ve wasted huge amounts of time dealing with their nonsense. And they need to think a bit about the epistemic situation they’re creating where information about Iraq that they don’t want to hear — even when published in a pro-war publication — can just be immediately dismissed as fraudulent even though the misconduct it described was far, far less severe than all sorts of other well-document misconduct in Iraq.
Of course, the right can’t stop to take a breath; the mob has spoken. They need to destroy this American soldier immediately to help demonstrate how much they love the troops.