In an interview with the New York Observer earlier today, New Republic editor Frank Foer singles out THE WEEKLY STANDARD for recklessness in raising questions about a pseudonymous column by a soldier in Iraq, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, published two weeks ago in the New Republic. Foer’s accusation is misleading and unwarranted. The article in question, “Shock Troops,” was a collection of first-person “vignettes” (TNR’s term) that described the author’s cruelty and that of his fellow soldiers. The point, according to the New Republic, was to depict “the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war.” The Observer‘s Michael Calderone writes: “Of the Weekly Standard in particular, Mr. Foer said he did not assist in their reporting when contacted because of ‘the reckless way they handled their investigation.'” This is preposterous. Foer did in fact assist us in our reporting, whatever he now says to the contrary. However, a key corroborating detail that he obtained from the author and passed along to me–before I ever published a word about Scott Thomas Beauchamp–turns out now to have been false. Before publicly raising questions about Beauchamp’s reliability as a narrator of war stories, I interviewed Foer by phone on the afternoon of July 17. His description of the “fact-checking” process for Beauchamp’s article did not inspire confidence. Here is how he described the New Republic‘s due diligence in his interview with me:
After our conversation, Foer followed up with several emails. Here is our entire exchange, with only the email addresses edited out:
Only after that exchange did I publish my first piece on the subject–a request to the “milblogging community to do some digging of their own, and individual soldiers and veterans to come forward with relevant information–either about the specific events or their plausibility in general.” The reader can judge who was reckless here. But let’s look again at that final email from Foer. The clear implication is that the New Republic has been in contact with Beauchamp on July 17, and that Beauchamp now knows that his work is being closely scrutinized. And yet he reiterates that the scarred woman was at his base in Iraq, FOB Falcon. Indeed, this was the scene that led his piece, and he certainly seems to recall vividly every detail:
Today, the New Republic says, “Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. … The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error.” Acknowledged his error? How about confessed that he made something up? How about, misled his editors when they pressed him for corroborating details on July 17, after the piece was published? And how do we reconcile this with Foer’s own statements over the past two weeks, including one to ABC News claiming corroboration of the account:
The New Republic is correct about one thing: the detail is significant. If the incident happened in Kuwait, it eliminates their editorial rationale for publishing the piece. It means Private Beauchamp had suffered “the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war” before ever going to war. The only recklessness in this sorry story was the New Republic‘s decision to publish the piece, and Foer’s decision to stand by it.
