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]

Or, he might be completely full of crap, which is what the entire body of milbloggers is saying about his accounts, as well as his command. But they're biased, right? So why believe them, even if they're exposing the implausibility of Beauchamp's accounts in excruciating detail?

Let's check with the book doctor, the semiotician. His analysis was spot on in nearly every detail, and you've obviously been exposed to it.

How did Barnes see this coming? And why do you see authenticity in Beauchap's dispatches where Barnes sees self-aggrandizing claptrap?

[SEK]

Quite simply, because I've read hundreds of memoirs of Vietnam vets, and recognize the style Thomas was self-consciously imitating. Do you mean to tell me that what he says isn't true simply because it belongs to a well-established (and well-respected) tradition of war-reportage? I doubt it. My point is simply that nothing he said screams bullshit; that, in fact, it corresponds with what I've read and heard from Vietnam, Gulf War, and Afghanistan/Iraq veterans. And that I don't think it's damaging in any respect. They have no choice but to be a little dehumanized; after all, what they're doing is quite literally inhumane. Necessary, but inhumane. If you castigate them for their gallows humor; if you make it seem as if what they need to do to survive's beyond the pale, well then, now you're the one who's inhumane.

[Dan Collins]

I'm sorry, Scott, if my perception of what constitutes verisimilitude differs from yours, if my estimate of the relative humanity of American soldiers in Iraq differs from yours, if I think that it is appalling that TNR has enabled this young idiot, who was writing the tales he's dispatching from Baghdad before he got there--not for the experience of proving what he thought was right, but in order to gain the credentials to underwrite what he knew beforehand it would be, and that he would be rewarded for it.

I am sorry that I am appalled that what is presented as diary has so little basis in fact, that the burned face woman somehow supernaturally appeared in his blog writings before he went over, that TNR has fallen for a Piltdown Man that they paid to have created before it was buried. I'm sorry that you feel that I am apoplectic over it, because that's really not how I feel right now. I burned through my outrage some time ago. Right now, I find this thing delightfully amusing, even though I realize that it's in bad taste, and that serious people like Malkin and the Captain would recognize in that my terribly vitiated sensibilities.

That doesn't mean I don't think you're a swell guy, though.

[Pablo]

No, my belief that what he says is, shall we say, highly embellished, comes from the reportage of numerous milbloggers and his own command.

Specifically, the burned woman is a mystery to many people who have served at FOB Falcon in the time period described, including the command. And yet, Beauchamp tells us that she's a regular in the chow hall. How is it that all of these other people on a relatively small post with but one dining facility manage to have never seen this hideous damaged woman that Beauchamp and his friends mocked?

Another issue is the running dogs over with a Bradley account. First, the driver is not autonomous, and one does not joyride in a Bradley. Secondly, should one do such things, exposing the entire crew to the threat of roadside IED's, not to mention being tossed around said Bradley, he'd get his ass kicked by the crew for foolishly risking their lives and then he'd face disciplinary action from the vehicle's commander.

He also says that they'd hit a dog and dragged it. A Bradley will not drag anything under its tracks. Links drop in the front and are picked up in the rear. While on the ground, they're stationary. They're tracks, not wheels. You can get squished, but without an inhuman effort to get caught in the drive, you can't possibly get dragged.

I completely understand that black humor will get you through some truly awful times. But this is something else that simply doesn't ring true, not only to me but to those in a much better place to make such determinations than either of us. Beauchamp is writing fiction of the very same sort he was writing about Iraq before he'd ever set foot there.

You ignored my question regarding Dr. Barnes. Please respond to it.

[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.

[Pablo]

No, Marc. It's not the least bit accurate according to those who are serving there now. On the contrary, that you feel it to be reasonably truthy seems to be causing you to accept it as gospel, simply because it fits your expectations. Meanwhile, you ignore the opinions and the factual rebuttal of those who are in a position to know, simply because you'd rather not believe them in favor of Beauchamp.

In other words, you're projecting.

[SEK]

Dan and Pablo, I'm with Marc on this one. True or not, the American people have a long history of despising the actions of the teens they've sent to die. I'm not excusing atrocities here, but I'm absolutely, positively absolving them of any responsibility for uncouth or infelicitous behavior. Their standards aren't ours, because they served in our stead. They're not monsters, not inhuman, only men and women, barely adults, thrust into circumstances they can't rationalize away. So they laugh at the dead. So what? You think they could live with themselves in our society without some distance from what they'd done to protect it? I don't. Isn't a matter of just this case, merely one of acknowledging that war alters all, and that anyone who can't recognize that is...I won't even say. But it ain't good.

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. They should know what war does to people -- after all, they've vigorously supported it in all its contemporary guises -- but if they don't, if they belief that war doesn't dehumanize, or that what Thomas wrote was unbelievable, then there's a larger problem with those who so easily call for war without understanding the stakes of doing so. Needless to say, they're not supporting the troops, no matter what they say.

[SEK]

On the contrary, that you feel it to be reasonably truthy seems to be causing you to accept it as gospel, simply because it fits your expectations.

No, Pablo: it doesn't fit my expectations of this war, or its soldiers, but of any war I've ever studied, any conflict I've read about. Let me reiterate: what they've done is well within the bounds of believability, and the fact that you deny that tells me that you haven't read many frank war memoirs. Remember, I'm not disparaging the troops: I'm outraged by the fact that you seem to deny the psychological toll war takes upon a soldier, the little dehumanizations which allow him or her to do a job. This isn't that complicated, Pablo: war alters all, and it's something we need to deal with, lest we do to this generation of vets what we did to those unfortunate enough to return from Vietnam. For the sake of the troops, don't become the '70s Left you revile.

[Pablo]

nother 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.

I'll pose the same question I asked you on PW. What is this knee-jerk dismissal/automatic disbelief? Please quote a bit of it. The vast majority of what I've seen debunking this comes from milbloggers and Beauchamp's command. Where is the out-of-hand dismissal?

And again, please offer an explanation as to how Barnes pegged Beauchamp so very closely.

[Pablo]

Oh, btw, I'm a former M-60 gunner. I've read plenty about the Vietnam war and others and I've served closely with dozens of men who were there. So the "I've read way more books about war than you" appeal to authority ploy isn't going to fly.

[marc page]

No, Pablo, the projection (into my comment) is all yours.

You see, I don't give a damn if 'Scott Thomas' is giving us "gospel." verbatim ac litteratim, or if your boy, Michael Yon, swears up and down that the bad brown guys are cooking kids and serving them for dinner; what I know for a fact is that men in the grip of fear, driven to, and past the edge of paranoia (by multiple tours of duty in a confusing political landscape) do bad things. Every time. That's what happens when people fight each other with lethal weapons.

It's your war, Pablo: own it .... the good, the bad, and the horrific.

Anchors aweigh.

[Pablo]

hat I know for a fact is that men in the grip of fear, driven to, and past the edge of paranoia (by multiple tours of duty in a confusing political landscape) do bad things. Every time.

You know that happens every time, do you, Marc?

How?

[SEK]

You know that happens every time, do you, Marc?

Stop debating, Pablo. You know that some men break in war, while others merely bend. That's a necessary consequence of asking people to kill strangers, and those military ought not be vilified for being a little off-kilter after having done so. Again, I find it odd that my defense of grunts is being used as evidence of...I don't quite know what.

[marc page]

"From going to and fro on the earth, and walking up and down ... "

However, if you can point to an example of a war that was waged with all the ferocity of a picnic in the park, I'd love to hear about it.

[marc page]

"Once lead this people into war, and they'll forget there ever was such a thing as tolerance. To fight you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into every fiber of our national life, infecting Congress, the courts, the policeman on the beat, the man in the street."

Woodrow Wilson (1917)

Was he wrong, Pablo?

[Pablo]

Perhaps I should just tell you about butterflies in war zones, since you seem completely disinterested in the topic at hand. If "From going to and fro on the earth, and walking up and down .." is the extent of your knowledge of the realities of war, you've got nothing to offer here.

Been nice talking to you, Marc.

[marc page]

Wish I could say the same, Pablo.

[Rich Puchalsky]

I think this episode really shows the wingnut values that America has come to appreciate. Let's say the guy made all these incidents up. So we have a storm of tar-and-feathering from the Keyboard Kommandoes of an actual soldier serving in Iraq, all because he wanted to get a writing credit in TNR. Way to support the troops! But of course these people don't care about troops, they only care about Bush and Bush's war.

Meanwhile, I can't resist some special comments for Pablo the former M-60 machine gunner who really truly isn't making up his own war stories. Pablo, the magical semiotics man insisted that this writer was an MFA student. Now that we know that he apparently isn't, what did the magic semiotics man actually get right? That he's a writer? Writing in war story style? You know, that was sort of apparent.

[marc page]

For the (meaningless) 'Record' (and, honestly, just for the fun of it):

'If "... I haven’t been in the shit. I’ve been trained for it, and once came within hours of deployment to it, but I’ve never been in it ..."* is the extent of your knowledge of the realities of war, you've got nothing to offer here.'

"As for black humor, I’m reminded of a story, and I haven’t seen the piece, so it could be bullshit, but it’s believable.

Katie Couric is interviewing a sniper. She asks him what he feels when he shoots an enemy. His response?

'Recoil'"+

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

* Comment by Pablo on 7/26 @ 8:45 pm #

+ Comment by Pablo on 7/26 @ 8:54 pm #

[Pablo]

Let's say the guy made all these incidents up. So we have a storm of tar-and-feathering from the Keyboard Kommandoes of an actual soldier serving in Iraq,

Uh, no. What we have is other soldiers serving in Iraq, including his command, debunking those stories, and people not serving there relating that information.

Pablo, the magical semiotics man insisted that this writer was an MFA student. Now that we know that he apparently isn't, what did the magic semiotics man actually get right?

No, he got that right too. Barnes said:

Based on a mix of semiotic analysis and my seat of the pants experience as a frequent reader of professional and near-professional writing by new writers, my guess is this: I think "Scott Thomas" is actually an MFA writing student, or a recent graduate of such a program, probably with some military experience – he may be serving in some non-combat specialty in Iraq – probably from one of the elite MFA programs, the twenty or so from which college creative writing faculty and small-press staff come disproportionately.

And we then find that:

“Glenn is completely submerged in politics on campus. It is honestly impossible to think about politics at MU without thinking of Glenn,” says Scott Beauchamp, editor-in-chief of Prospectus, a liberal campus news magazine. Beauchamp and Rehn met one year ago while campaigning for Howard Dean.

Beauchamp is/was a student of writing, and given that the article linked was written by his wife, I say we give it credence. And as for Barnes, you know he's on your side, right?

I suppose I wish Foer well. He's got a long life ahead of him and right now he's way up a tree and that looks like a long fall. But I can't help thinking that the sooner he falls out of that tree, the better for all of us on the left, and maybe for the country as a whole.