New York Times: Fact, Or Ob-Foer-scation?

Update: Ace weighs in and disagrees with my seeing this as a retreat. But Ace seems to miss the actual quote from Foer I reference below. Foer has at the least been giving us the impression that he confirmed these facts through more than one additional source. It now appears all of Beauchamp's truth rests with one other individual. That might be enough to let Foer off the hook, but it's a far cry from the imression he was giving when he was talking about the rigorous effort he made to verify the story.

The New York Times picked up on the TNR Scott Thomas Beauchamp story, but something doesn't add up.

This is what Foer has said previously:

I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine--and much to corroborate--the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation.

Here is what Foer told the New York Times today:

At least one soldier in the unit had already confirmed the events described, Mr. Foer said, but the magazine plans, “to the extent possible,” to “re-report every detail,” a task made more difficult now that Private Beauchamp cannot easily communicate with anyone overseas. Mr. Foer said that Private Beauchamp was married to a reporter-researcher for The New Republic, Elspeth Reeve.

That sounds like quite a retreat given his previous statements.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

That "at least one" being of course Thomas himself ;->

[Lala]

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/07/26/scott-thomas-beauchamp-heading/

Flopping Aces says Beauchamp is heading to the stockade.

[AMac]

I think something's being missed in terms of "what the story is." Here are the three "Shock Troops" anecdotes:

1. Beauchamp and a friend loudly mock and curse an IED-disfigured woman in FOB Falcon's crowded chow hall. The many soldiers who overhear find this behavior unremarkable. None object.

2. At a "Saddam-era dumping grounds of some sort," one of Beauchamp's friends prances about wearing a child's skull as a crown. His capering provokes laughter, not disgust. He wears a piece of skull with rotting flesh under his helmet, through the day and night, and on a mission. No witness to these actions reprimands the soldier, or reports him.

3. A soldier smashes his BFV into buildings and market stalls, and runs over dogs. He tallies his kills and reports them over the unit's radio net. No one objects. The many soldiers who hear the report of a dog-slicing escapade over the radio roll with laughter.

Now the three anecdotes again, with witnesses removed.

1. Late one night, Beauchamp and a friend quietly mock a disfigured woman in FOB Falcon's nearly-empty chow hall, until she leaves in tears.

2. At a graveyard, one of Beauchamp's friends prances about wearing a child's skull as a crown. Beauchamp laughs; his friend wears a piece of skull with rotting flesh under his helmet through the day and night, telling nobody else.

3. A friend of Beauchamp confides that he has managed to smash his BFV into buildings and market stalls, and run over dogs, without anybody realizing that these "mistakes" were intentional.

The reader's response to the latter set of stories? "We all know that some some soldiers--like some members of any other group--are disturbed or sociopathic. Beauchamp and his friends fall into that category."

But that was not the objective of "Shock Troops." Beauchamp--the creative writing graduate--structured his narrative to drive home to the reader that the moral standards of most of the soldiers he serves with are degraded to the point of depravity. To make his point, Beauchamp must deliver a narrative in which the depraved acts are witnessed.

So he did.

I think that the events that Beauchamp described did, likely, happen: a soldier taunted a woman; a soldier donned a skull at a gravesite; a BFV driver ran down a dog. Perhaps Franklin Foer will trumpet verification of such instances as a vindication of Beauchamp, and of TNR's editorial policy.

But if the events were not grotesque (as "Shock Troops" describes) and if the events were not witnessed (as "Shock Troops" describes), then the affair's actual meaning is very different from what Beauchamp wishes it to be.

[Bill B]

Excellent post, AMac. I agree that it's possible Beauchamp was recounting incidents that actually happened (without the witnesses), but I'm more inclined to expect "confirmation" to come in the form of grain of truth stories such as:

1)A woman was indeed taunted in the chow hall, for whatever reason.

2)A dog was run over by a Bradley, accidentally or deliberately (though it's unlikely anybody could do it on purpose).

3)As far as Beauchamp's and TNR's defenders are concerned, the mass grave story has already been confirmed because a children's cemetery was found, no matter that the only similarity is both contain dead bodies and it still doesn't confirm to skull wearing story.

[chris]

I smell a sock puppet in TNR's future

Mssr. Beauchamp is a creaive guy with creative friends and can recognize a mark (Foer)when he sees one.

Remeber the "speaking to" happened with Mssr. Beauchamp and Madame de Beauchamp. The rest seems to be "communications."

Also, is it legal to pay am active duty guy or did they enhance the Mrs.' paycheck?

[91B30]

STB's claims are being investigated by his unit. It is one thing for a GI to write to a magazine editor for a buddy and say "yeah sure, we did all that stuff". It is something else entirely for that troop to make a sworn statement to his command that those things happened. Let's wait and see what happens with the investigation-who cares what Foer says at this point?

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

"At least one soldier in the unit had already confirmed the events described, Mr. Foer said"

HAHAHA!

Is that "At least one soldier" *other than Beauchamp*?? Or is that "At least one soldier" Beauchamp himself?

[JimBimbo]

Hey wingnuts! First you claimed that "Scott Thomas" wasn't a fiction. Then he indentified himself. Oops. So then you said he was a real soldier but he lied. And your thug buddies at Blackfive issued thinly-veiled death threats. Oops. Now there's a corroborating witness. Don't you people know how to quit when you're behind?

[Rob Crawford]

Who's the corroborating witness?

And, really, is no one allowed to question ANYTHING anymore? The first issue with anonymous accusations is "does the accuser exist, or is he a fiction crafted by someone else". After that, you deal with the facts of the accusation; there's little reason to debunk claims made by a phantasm, after all.

[memomachine]

Hmmm.

@ JimBimbo

"First you claimed that "Scott Thomas" wasn't a fiction."

??? What on earth are you talking about? I tried parsing this sentence and quite frankly it needs a serious re-write.