TNR and Scott Beauchamp

The New Republic accuses the Army of stonewalling when it comes to Scott Beauchamp's fabulist tales of military cruelty in Iraq. It is now clear that the Army can't speak on the subject without Beauchamp's permission.

Here's my read on the situation.

Scott Beauchamp wants to be a writer so he created some stories he thought would resonate with the anti-war literary elite. These stories were printed as if they were fact by the New Republic with minimal or sloppy fact-checking.

The stories contained actions which were clearly against military codes of conduct so the Army investigated. The Army investigation concluded that Beauchamp's stories were without basis in reality but since they are nice guys - they just slapped Beauchamp on the wrist for his transgressions. However, the Army probably told Beauchamp that if he tried to defend his stories as the truth then the Army would go public with their findings and Beauchamp would face a court-martial. So now Beauchamp is stuck. He can't respond to the New Republic guys to help defend the stories without facing real repercussions for his lies. And he can't come out and say it was all lies without burning his literary bridges.

Meanwhile you would think that a magazine such as The New Republic would have learned from the example of Richard Nixon. It was not the break-in that brought Nixon down - it was the cover-up. Likewise for The New Republic publishing the story by Beauchamp was bad enough but it is the defense of the story which is bringing the magazine's reputation to its knees.

The Army, for their part, is not unlike your own employer. There may be things in your personnel file but your employer cannot release that information without your permission. The Army has placed their findings into Beauchamp's file but they cannot now release that information without Beauchamp's permission.