What I think about several of the nay-sayers with regard to the importance of Beauchamp--and even a significant portion of the yea-sayers--is that there is an gap in perception between military and civilian commentators. I don't think many members of either group understand the overarching reason (IMO) *why* Beauchamp is important--or why he isn't. This isn't a slam on either group, but it's the same reason that I don't understand the importance of entities with which I am don't have an intimate familiarity.
That may sound like a "chickenhawk" slam but it isn't--as anyone who searches my blog using the keyword "chickenhawk" would discover.
It's merely reality.Comment Posted By baldilocks On 7.08.2007 @ 20:04
What more should I have said?
That a goodly portion of the right-wing dissection of the Beauchamp saga was coming from bloggers who are or have been in the military (like Bryan). And that this slander against the military was part of a larger and increasingly upfront narrative from the Left that the military is composed mostly of mindlessly brutal idiots who only follow the orders of their not-so-mindless, but equally brutal authorities above them (such as Bush and Cheney). For that's how we who know what goes on in the military see this and every other slander of the military that has been put forth in public.
In your last post on this topic, you mentioned the Spielman case and commenter #16 above, Thom, asks a relevant question about it:
Given what we know about the horrors of the rape and murder story, and other stories, how is going after the comparatively paltry claims of Beauchamp â€œprotecting the honorâ€ of the military? Really, how?
Though I go into this via a link to the last post, Iâ€™ll give a short version here: the outcome of Spielman, et al., points to an Armed Force which has the means to punish and remains vigilant to punish those of its number who commit crimesâ€”small and large.
In contrast, the Beauchamp storiesâ€”insignificant though they may seem--put forth the concept of a military that is out of control and it feeds a larger narrative. The authors of that narrative wish to discredit the character of military members, military leaders, the CinC and, thereby, the militaryâ€™s mission in the GWOT. The Beauchamp saga is just one of many attempts. (My trackback response to Rickâ€™s last post is free of hostility and invective, which is why I suspect that Iâ€™m getting no feedback.)
That Spielman and his buddies committed such crimes shows the evil to which many humansâ€”military and civilian--are prone. They will suffer the consequences for their actions, which is an idea which Beachamp and TNR tried to dispute. Thatâ€™s why this story is important.Comment Posted By baldilocks On 7.08.2007 @ 19:22
TNR Responds to Beauchamp Report...
And I'm back just in time to find this from The Plank:We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army...Comment Posted By baldilocks On 7.08.2007 @ 15:23
To me it seemed that Kondracke was spelling "Plan B" out rather than advocating it. After all, he did assert that such a strategy would cause "America's credibility [to] suffer [to put it mildly] because it abandoned its mission."Comment Posted By baldilocks On 12.05.2007 @ 01:01
Thanks, Rick. Writing more is my New Year's Resolution.
And I'm a retired NCO, not an officer (insert old military joke about working for a living here).Comment Posted By baldilocks On 20.12.2006 @ 16:05
Pages (2) : 1