NEWSFLASH: Ordinary Men Trained to Kill Occasionally Behave in Ways We Consider Inappropriate

When I read Scott Thomas' "Shock Troops," it didn't ring inauthentic.  I've taught the memoirs and novels of Vietnam veterans and what Thomas described was tame in comparison.  So imagine my surprise when I learned that the right had gone apoplectic over Thomas' comparatively sedate column.  He hadn't document the violation of fundamental human rights, nor had he spoken of atrocities committed by American troops.  All he'd communicated was the lengths some soldiers will go to remain sane in the heat of war. 

From our perspective, the private who wore part of a human skull under his helmet is almost inhuman.  From his perspective—i.e. from the perspective of someone who wakes up every morning knowing the odds of him ending someone else's life are comparable to those someone else will end his—his disrespect for the dead commingles with the profound disrespect for Death instilled in those who kill in our name.  Their reluctance to revere our monuments to life is what makes them effective killers; moreover, it is what allows them to return home thoroughly disconnected from the monsters they had to become to kill. 

If they went to war strong Christian men, they'd be horrified by what they did on a minute-by-minute basis.  Who among them could imagine sitting on their porch, spotting movement along a fence and, without thinking, firing indiscriminately?  One-in-a-million?  One-in-ten-million?  Point being, the vast majority of our troops are not sociopaths: they are trained killers, and they kill within a context, and they laugh at death, and they are irreverent.  They laugh at what would sicken us because they do what would sicken us. 

They are not horrible people.  They are who we have made them.  They are who we need them to be. 

So please, Mrs. Malkin, stop with the sanctimonious bullshit.  You've been to Iraq.  You know these men suffer.  Spare them your feigned outrage.  They're trying to cope.  Permit them their poor taste.  Permit them to thumb their nose at the mean deaths they bring by flipping their finger at the mean death they fear.

Dan, stop tarring The New Republic for allowing a soldier to tell what happens in a combat zone.  Whatever you say about him, grant him the courage of his convictions—he is no armchair liberal, and even if he were, deployed as he is, he has learned quickly and rudely the lessons of war.  His humor belongs to the soldier, to the gallows; respect it for being won hard, and at a price well beyond the means of our outrage.

Jeff, he may be an "antiwar opportunist," but that doesn't mean he's not a soldier.  That doesn't mean he wouldn't lay down his life for the men he fights beside.  Say what you will about the intentions of men who go to war—I've known more I care to count at this point—who they become when they get there changes them forever.  They don't become flag-waving patriots, nor do they embrace the casus bellum unthinkingly; but they do feel the bond only felt by those who, together, violated the code of the very society they kill to defend. 

The life of a grunt is difficult enough.  Stop piling it on.

UPDATE: As per the usual, Jon Swift nails it.

Comments

[Pablo]

[The U.S. does not use "snipers;" we have 'marksmen.' Why do you hate America, Pablo?]

Nonsense. And foolish nonsense at that. I'll let you draw the inference. And with that, you'll forgive me if I don't bother to respond to anything else you have to say, Marc.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Pablo, you evidently don't know what an "MFA" is. Why don't you look it up? Barnes said that the writer was a student at one of the elite MFA schools. The piece that you quote is about a junior at MU. In other words, it appears that Barnes was flat wrong. He gets no credit for predicting that the guy was once a writing student of some kind.

As for Barnes being on my side -- no. I don't have sides in the way that your simplistic worldview thinks of them. Barnes was making up a story about someone, based on a text, and it appears that he did a poor job of it. The way that you think that what he did is magic really is funny.

And by the way, I would guess that you've made up your supposed military service from whole cloth. I've only previously seen people who were never near war have the attitude towards it that you do.

[marc page]

I'll forgive you (and thank you) for refraining from any further response, Pablo; but I will not forgive you for your enthusiastic support of the invasion and occupation of the Middle East.

[Darleen]

those unfortunate enough to return from Vietnam

Well, that was really a strange comment, SEK.

Yes, some soldiers were "unfortunate" to return from Vietnam...to be reviled as "baby killers" and spat upon.

The revisionism concerning the Vietnam era is startling..and has happened while those of us alive at the time are STILL living. Why, we just had John Kerry stating that nothing happened in SE Asia after the withdrawal of American troops and the betrayl of So Vietnam by the Dem Congress. (I'm sure "only losers end up in the military" Kerry's handlers are busy crossing off Garden Grove, California, from any future speaking jaunts)

BTW, SEK, what makes you think that the US military is filled with teens or barely youngsters "barely" adults? Isn't that part and parcel of the dismissal/infantilization/marginalization of military troops? Your attitude smacks of "noblesse oblige" ... those poor "boys" just can't help themselves, poor brutal dears!

War is hell. But there are worse alternatives.

[Darleen]

I will not forgive you for your enthusiastic support of the invasion and occupation of the Middle East.

That's ok. I'm sure there are many that don't forgive your enthusiastic support for American surrender and Islamist victory.

[marc page]

Yes, some soldiers were "unfortunate" to return from Vietnam...to be reviled as "baby killers" and spat upon.

The revisionism concerning the Vietnam era is startling.

You said it, sister.

And if a nation were to stop defending itself from being invaded and occupied, that would be a 'surrender.' An aggressor nation ending a brutal and (open-ended) occupation of another country might be more accurately described as 'coming to one's senses.'

[Darleen]

Marc

Are you defending the jihadists in Iraq that are killing Americans and Iraqis? Is that the "defending nation" you are supporting?

How far does your support of jihadist ideology go? Do you also support the goals of Hamas? Hizbolleh? Ahmadawhackjob of Iran? Al Asqa? Fatah?

I realize you have NO feelings for the apostate Iraqis who support the American help in trying to establish an independent Iraq ... their slaughter in the wake of a precipitous is an event you will deny, just as Kerry denies the slaugther in SE Asia after American withdrawal.

I guess some brown people are more equal then others, eh?

[Rich Puchalsky]

Ah, now you're getting the full run of Jeff's usual commenters, Scott. But this is a literary blog, so let's look at Jeff's post itself as an example of textual interpretation. It's the post of an intellectual lightweight. First, Jeff takes pains to pseudo-science his way into authority for the benefit of his claque, e.g.: "For Dr Barnes — using a statistical semiotic analysis as his method [...]" Whatever Barnes does for his day job, he didn't run a statistical analysis on the TNR article, so Jeff's frequent repetition of "statistical" is a smokescreen.

But beyond that, Jeff's basic criticism is risible: it's that one always has to be aware that authorial style in a text could be a highly skilled author parodying another style. Ah, but Jeff neglected to mention that it could be an even more highly skilled author parodying someone parodying the style of an unskilled author. It's the Princess Bride Sicilian school of literary criticism.

If you really think that this is important, the whole idea of strong authorial intent that he maunders about goes out the window -- his blog, for example, could very well be a years-long Dadaist satire, any assurances to the contrary being part of the joke -- so the intent and therefore according to Jeff the real and true meaning of his writing will remain forever undetermined.

I again wonder what you saw in that whole community, Scott.

[marc page]

First, Goldstein sends in the B Team (Dan and Pablo) ... so, what are you, Darleen? The Scrubs?

Anyway, nice work hitting so many 'talking points' in so short a comment.
And if you think I'm buying that nonsense about the U.S. only wanting to help establish an "independent Iraq," sorry, princess, no sale.

And your reductionist routine -- that is, if anyone disagrees with your view, he or she must necessarily support 'the enemy,' has also lost its bite.

By the way, didn't you get the memo? You're supposed to say we're fighting Al-qaeda in Iraq now. Al-qaeda. That's the ticket.

[Pablo]

Barnes said that the writer was a student at one of the elite MFA schools. The piece that you quote is about a junior at MU. In other words, it appears that Barnes was flat wrong.

No, Rich, he missed is by that much, with that much being that Beauchamp came up short in the academic department. He's a lit student, a wannabe writer and precisly the just the sort of fabulist Barnes described. And from scant little but the text itself to work with, but the text itself.

As for Barnes being on my side -- no. I don't have sides in the way that your simplistic worldview thinks of them.

Oh, so you don't self define as being on the left of the political spectrum? Interesting that you argue from it.

Barnes was making up a story about someone, based on a text, and it appears that he did a poor job of it.

Barnes compiled a profile, not a story and he was largely accurate.

The way that you think that what he did is magic really is funny.

What's funny is that I don't think any such thing, nor have I indicated that I do, and yet you think it's the truth. Clearly, you're having trouble comprehending rather plain English. I think Barnes got where he got by reading the signs in the piece and evaluating them based on his experience in assessing vast amounts of text.

Marc,

First, Goldstein sends in the B Team...

Goldstein sent no one. I followed Scott's trackback, and Scott joined in himself. You are an idiot. Grow up.

[Karl Steel]

Another way to say this: the automatic disbelief on the part of Ace and Malkin is disingenuous in the extreme, or if not, idiotic beyond belief.

#1 and #2. This is just another Jamil Hussein moment. They're idiotic and disingenuous. I'd say, folks, anytime you find yourself on the same side of an issue as Malkin and Ace (and Jeff G. for that matter), you're probably dead wrong. When was the last time any of these people was right about anything?

The question here is not whether or not every detail this particular person wrote is correct. And the question is not this person's motivations. No one's motivations are pure. Obviously. The question is whether or not US troops in Iraq have committed atrocities. And the answer is: of course. Happens in every war. The belief in a war without atrocities is childish. So, Darleen, yes, US troops did kill babies in Vietnam. Millions of Indochinese died between 1963-1973 (and later, once we include the Khmer Rouge); the US dropped, oh, how many?, tons of bombs on Vietnam during the war: certainly some of the dead were babies; and, whatever, Mi Lai; and, Darleen? That spitting thing? a myth.

[Karl Steel]

Or to put this another way: don't play soccer like a crowd of 4-year-olds, clustering around the ball that the Right kicks around while losing sight of what you should keep in mind (talk about wannabe writer!). The Right is always wrong; they are always hypocrites or fools. So, obviously, don't let them define what we should be arguing.

We have Darleen, for example, crying out for the poor "apostate" Iraqis who want "an independent Iraq." Although her comment doesn't make much sense, I can guess that she's pulling the human rights card to defend the great humanitarian mission of invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein and replacing him with whatever we've replaced him with (ethnic cleansing and the explosion of religious fundamentalism in what had been a secular state, apparently). Since smart people oppose the war, clearly we're against human rights. Or something like that. To counter: #1, if the US pulls out, Iraq will be "independent," whatever that means; #2, imagining that by "independent" Darleen means "liberal secular capitalist democracy," the US has never been interested in an "independent" Iraq (see the support for Hussein in the 80s, for example); #3, if the US really wanted to help these people out, it would let Iraqi refugees into this country at a rate slightly higher than a trickle. So, clam it up: what you, and all you Rightists want, is more war. Which means more baby killing, if you want to pull that sentimentalist card.

[Rich Puchalsky]

In my continuing quest to find something about this that's worth talking about, I note Pablo's sentiment:

"Oh, so you don't self define as being on the left of the political spectrum? Interesting that you argue from it."

Note that this was in response to my statement that I don't think in terms of simplistic "sides". For Pablo, it's not just a matter of pride that he does -- he literally can't think in any other way. For him, the idea of disagreeing with another right-winger about anything is inconceivable, so he wants me to hold the same attitude; that since Barnes is "left" and I am "left", I should automatically approve of or agree with Barnes' statement.

That's what the wingnuts are doing to all art and science, really.

And you can see an interesting, ancient strand of anti-intellectualism elsewhere in that response, too. Apparently, a writer is a writer is a writer and therefore a "fabulist". When one learns to write -- whether at an elite MFA program or as an undergraduate, it makes no difference -- one becomes a fabulist by definition (since no evidence is apparently necessary). It's like the complaints about the Sophists.

[marc page]

And with that, you'll forgive me if I don't bother to respond to anything else you have to say, Marc.

Posted by: Pablo | Thursday, 26 July 2007 at 08:44 PM

Marc,

First, Goldstein sends in the B Team...
Goldstein sent no one. I followed Scott's trackback, and Scott joined in himself. You are an idiot. Grow up.

Posted by: Pablo | Friday, 27 July 2007 at 05:46 AM

Oh, Pablo, how will I ever be able to trust you again ? You kids on the Right are always talking about your ever-so-high-minded principles, and here you are going back on your word.

Anchors aweigh, chump.

[Karl Steel]

I should also add that it's highly suspicious that the Right should cue up another whingefest just when it comes out that Pat Tillman, who was initially a war hero of the Right, but whom they abandoned when the proud atheism of his family and Pat's own opposition to Bush came out, was killed by 3 M-16 shots to the forehead fired from 10 yards away. And to that we might add that Bush has been stonewalling on letting the truth come out on what looks a lot more like murder (or assassination) than friendly fire.

Pretty convenient of you Righties isn't? Pathetic. Whoo-hoo! Support the Troops!

Support shooting them in the head if they get uppity, apparently.

[RTO Trainer]

from the perspective of someone who wakes up every morning knowing the odds of him ending someone else's life are comparable to those someone else will end his

This doesn't even approach accurate.

The odds of him ending someone's life are toweringly higher than someone ending his if he is an infantry troop. That's he's already displayed a tendency to fabricate, gives cause to doubt, especially in consideration of some of the detals he has fabricated.

If, on the other hand he's one of the thousands of support troops (like me) who don't have the opportunity to often venture through the wire, those odds begin to approach parity, but only begin to.

I've spent 22 months on the ground in a Combat Zone over the past 4 years and I have not once fired my rifle in anger nor been fired upon, not counting odd rockets and mortars that were not aimed at me. That's exactly the experience of the vast majority of us.

[Squid]

Karl Steel wrote:

The question here is not whether or not every detail this particular person wrote is correct.... The question is whether or not US troops in Iraq have committed atrocities. And the answer is: of course.

Hear, hear! While he might not have gotten every detail right, he nailed the overall theme. You might say that his articles were fake, but accurate.

He's a reporter, reporting about the truths of war. Sure, it's not actual reporting of actual events, but that doesn't matter when all the reality-based minds know that it must be true of some soldier, somewhere, on some day. Get with the program, wingnuts!

[marc page]

As with every one of these Right Wing Jihads against Bad News from Iraq, they truly believe if they can just prove (at least to their own satisfaction) that the story is not 100% accurate then no one has been killed or maimed (at least, no "well-trained, square-jawed American," just some bad brown guys) and Iraq will soon be a docile province of the United States.

Posted by: marc page | Thursday, 26 July 2007 at 07:26 PM

[RTO Trainer]

Marc,

Had there not been significant flags on details in what was written t merit doubting PV2 Beaucham's stories;
and had there not been subsequnet fact checking that has determined that the stores are, in fact, false;
then, while PV2 Beauchmp may never have been hailed as a hero, he would not be facing administrative correction and those described would be the ones sought out to stand in front of the CO.

No one is decrying bad news. We are decrying lies told. Further, had those lies been formulated to make people look good rather than bad, the reaction would be much the same.

We do not lie cheat or steal, nor tollerate those who do. Motivation enters not into it.

You've got your own closet to celan, anyhow, given you can make completely absurd statements about "docile province of the United States" without so much as an apparent rueful grimace.

[alkau]

It seems as if everyone is fighting about the truth of what has been written. Perhaps the truth is not what the auther experienced himself, but what others had experienced and told him. There was a book "Fragments" written by a man who said it was his personel experience in the camps during WWII. He remember what happened and how he survivedeven though he was only 2 years old when he was sent to the camps. After the story was reserached it was found to be the stories told to him by other survivors which he took as his own. His book was pulled and may never be seen again, but the sum total of stories by those he spoke with are lost to us now.
The point I am trying to make is that we should not care if the stories are a personel account or the sum total of others stories. We need to hear and know what our young men and women are dealing with so that perhaps we as a society will never treat returning vets the way we still treat Vietman vets.
I demonstrated against the Vietman war and yet I was engaged to a young man who was killed there. I frimly believe you can be against a war and still support thoes fighting. My dream life was ended one day when I was informed of my loves death. He was killed by the enemy while on free time playing with children who were also killed by theirown people. This is what was is about and as much as we would all like to live in a peaceful world that may never happen.
My life change when my young dream was taken away, but I survived and married and had children who would never have been if I had married my first love. I am lucky to have these children and I pray daily that they will never have to fire a weapon and never have to kill another person, but there is no way in the world today that I can be sure it will never happen.