Proudly Ashamed

Paul McNellis, who teaches philosophy at Boston College, pens an analysis of the actions of "Scott Thomas" Beauchamp. It is not flattering to either Beauchamp or to The New Republic who chose to publish the falsehoods that Beauchamp wrote. We know they are falsehoods because TNR admitted that one of the lurid tales of the "dehumanizing effects of war" occurred before Beauchamp ever got into the theater in the first place.  

But Beauchamp knows he's describing sociopathic behavior, for he asks, "Am I a monster? I have never thought of myself as a cruel person. Indeed, I have always had compassion for those with disabilities. I once worked at a summer camp for developmentally disabled children." So what would explain the behavior? Why do he and his comrades find despicable behavior funny? Beauchamp's answer: "That is how war works: it degrades every part of you, and your sense of humor is no exception."

Here, finally, is the master narrative sought by TNR. Because war "degrades every part of you," soldiers can't be expected to make normal moral decisions. Bad behavior? The war made them do it. See what the bad war does to good people? It turns former camp counselors into sociopaths.

But no self-respecting soldier wants TNR's bogus absolution. Soldiers pride themselves on being held to a higher standard than the rest of us, and to deny them the dignity of being moral agents renders meaningless the distinction between a dishonorable discharge and a Bronze Star. If soldiers no longer merit praise or blame, just sympathy, their service becomes meaningless.

TNR shows no awareness of this, and its attempt to defend its own journalistic malpractice is truly a wonder to behold. Editor Franklin Foer's first defense claimed that the objections raised about the story "really boil down to, would American soldiers be capable of doing things like the things described in the diarist. The practical jokes are exceptionally mild compared to things that have been documented by the U.S. military." We now know that Mr. Foer never believed it was about "practical jokes," for he now says that TNR published Beauchamp's piece because it "was about the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war…[it] was a startling confession of shame about some disturbing conduct, both his own and that of his fellow soldiers."

As Newsweek's Evan Thomas said of the press coverage of the Duke lacrosse team, "The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong." Similarly, Mr. Foer has his narrative–"the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war"– but the facts keep getting in the way. TNR now admits that the disturbing behavior Beauchamp claimed he engaged in actually occurred in Kuwait, before he had seen a single day of combat. So now the story is about the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of…" Well, of what, exactly? Of merely being member of the U.S. Army? Is that the new narrative?

Well, TNR is not done with all this yet. They may want to be, but they have some explaining to do. But Beauchamp has to go on with his life now. McNellis offers him some advice:

He can await his discharge and then return to testify before Congress as the victim veteran in the "proud of being ashamed" mode. He might even run for Congress himself. He wouldn't be the first.

Or, he can use his remaining time in the military to earn an honorable discharge. He could try to leave the military as a better man than when he entered. There are hints from his blog that he was already moving in that direction.

I would urge Pvt. Beauchamp to look at those in his unit, some of whom he surely respects and admires. Imitate them, and in the process you will become a better soldier, a better friend, a better husband, one day a better father, and…in the end, a better writer.

I rather suspect that Beauchamp will not heed the advice. But it would be nice to be wrong here.