Home > World Events > Beaucoup de Beauchamp

Beaucoup de Beauchamp

August 18th, 2007

A bunch of rightwing blogs are getting excited yet again about Scott Beauchamp. For those who haven’t followed the story, Beauchamp is a US soldier in Iraq who wrote some pieces for The New Republic which, among other things, described bad behaviour by US troops, such as deliberately running over stray dogs or taunting a woman disfigured by burns. The pro-war lobby has worn out dozens of keyboards seeking to discredit Beauchamp, his story and the very possibility of running over dogs in an armoured vehicle. Now it appears the US Army has denied Beauchamp’s claims. (To reiterate, I don’t care about or intend to debate, the details of this case).

Some might suggest that the truth or falsity of these stories doesn’t matter much in the light of this. or this or this or this, to list just a few of the disasters have taken place while the wingnutosphere has been defending the US Army’s commitment to animal welfare.

But that would miss the point. What matters, in the world of rightwing postmodernism, is not reality but the way the media reports it. One discredited memo is enough to turn George W. Bush from a scrimshank who used his family connections to line up a cushy billet to avoid war service, and then shirked even that, into a war hero.

So, lets stick to media criticism. Not long after Beauchamp’s piece ran in a single magazine of modest circulation, all the major MSM outlets ran a story by well known critics of the war, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack whose intrepid journey through recently pacified parts of Iraq had convinced them that the surge was working. Here, for example, is their piece in the NY Times.

Oddly enough, rightwing scepticism about the MSM was suspended for this piece. The fact that Pollack (author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq) and O’Hanlon had consistently supported the war, the occupation and the surge was not seen as anything to worry about. And none of the armchair experts worried at all about the logistical and technical issues on which they are usually so keen to display their expertise. It was left to Glenn Greenwald to point out that Pollack and O’Hanlon went on a guided tour organised by the US military, spent every night in the Green Zone, and formed many of their most striking impressions on the basis of two-hour visits to places like Mosul. Meanwhile, a third report from Anthony Cordesman was much less optimistic.

So where are the defences of O’Hanlon and Pollack? Technorati finds a few sites still trumpeting the initial report, and some pushing a similar one from Der Spiegel, but that’s about it. Apparently it’s more important to prove that an obscure private is telling tall tales than to offer a serious defence of the latest claims of imminent victory.

Categories: World Events Tags:
  1. August 18th, 2007 at 12:45 | #1

    as though it mattered. wars are fought by garden variety human beings, in an atmosphere of great danger and loosened morality. very little morality indeed, in the case of the usa government. everything happens, from simple brutality thru gang rape to organized mass murder.

    democracy doesn’t happen here, nor friendships between nations. the quislings despise their masters for fools, the unlucky hate the invader for the crimes they inflict.

    but this war was instigated by personalities whose grasp of morality was narrow, and grasp of reality not any wider. the central lesson is as ever, leaving the force of a nation in the hands of a few people is a recipe for disaster. democracy is not a sure cure for humanities frailties, but letting men on a white horse loose with an army is certain catastrophe.

  2. August 18th, 2007 at 19:58 | #2

    Well at least O’Hanlon and Pollack never accused Hilary Clinton of running over a dog and cutting it in half. Like Hilary could do that driving a Buick anyways, everyone knows they have special dog-friendly tyres. And Pollack and O’Hanlon support the troops dammit, which is more than the treasonous liberals do with their hate-filled lies. You and your ilk will blog on the other side of your laptop when you wake up and find that the terrorists done outbred us like they’re doing in Europe. Why do you hate Australia anyway?

  3. gordon
    August 20th, 2007 at 12:06 | #3

    This is a test

  4. August 20th, 2007 at 16:45 | #4

    I wonder if they’ll try to do a similar hatchet job on a group pf non-coms fresh from a tour in Iraq who say the war ain’t going so well.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Comments are closed.