| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| A different take on the New Republic/Scott Thomas Affair |
| 2007-07-25 |
| My agent always urges me to provide a sound bite version of any idea I put out in public. I don't actually think there are very many interesting ideas that fit into sound bites, but here's the short version for those of you without much in the way of attention spans, followed by an explanation laying it out in some detail (and including some of that scary semiotic stuff I do for business and industry, along with a bit about writing and publishing these days): 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. I also think I know how his piece came to be published in New Republic, in outline if not in detail, and that story will also be somewhat instructive and revealing. All right, that was the bite, here's the meal: There has been a great deal of uproar in the last few days over who or what "Scott Thomas" is. (Aside from being the name of a really nice guy from my Boy Scout patrol when I was about twelve years old). I hadn't been paying much attention either, but it's the pseudonym of a writer who claims to be an American soldier currently serving in Iraq, whose byline has appeared on three articles in The New Republic in the last few months. Actually the only article by "Scott Thomas" that has drawn any real attention is the last one, "Shock Troops," about bad behavior by American troops, which has severely torqued off the right wing press and blogs for a variety of reasons. Let me begin by stating up front that I'm fairly indifferent to the clash now embroiling The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New Republic, and swarms of mostly-conservative bloggers; I have a slightly different perspective, coming out of a background different from other people's. I think I have a pretty good guess as to who "Scott Thomas" is – not his identity but what sort of person the Thomas-hunters should be looking for -- based mainly on looking at his writing and at the social context of The New Republic from my unique perspective. I seriously doubt there is another consulting semiotician who is also a book doctor and part-time agency reader, and doubt even further that there is another one who has read "Thomas's" New Republic piece. If you haven't read it, what all the uproar is about is that "Scott Thomas" recounts three anecdotes in "Shock Troops," in which Thomas claims to have witnessed (and perhaps participated in) three morally appalling incidents: mocking a female IED victim with severe facial burns, taking a part of an Iraqi child's skull from a mass grave and treating it as a toy or souvenir, and running over stray dogs with a Bradley for fun. Since the war currently has what the corporate types I have worked for might call a "major image problem," obviously this is very displeasing to supporters of the war, who are kicking up a fuss. The fuss is easy to kick up and sustain because it has also become clear that in a host of factual matters, "Scott Thomas" seems to get things just slightly wrong – wrong in a way that suggests someone trying to do a good fake but without himself having the experience – and because Franklin Foer, the editor of The New Republic, has been slow and lame in his defense of the story, claiming that it is hard to get hold of corroborating sources and of "Scott Thomas" himself in Iraq. Go read the whole, scathing thing. You'll enjoy it, I promise. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #22 I just don't think "Scott Thomas" is the guy who saw any of those things, good or bad, and I don't think Foer has the judgment to avoid being fooled again, and again, and again. You might say it's the tradition he was brought up in – and it's a tradition that needs to die with this generation. Oooh. Need some ice for that, Mr. Foer? Yeah. A lot of it... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-07-25 21:05 |
| #21 Moose- THX for the support- It's fun to see all the combat patches at monthly training meetings. Some of us are authorized up to 4 (!!!) different divisional combat patches. Combined with the velcro on the ACU, it can be a fun game of "which senior officer do I want to annoy, by wearing which patch today?" As for combat vets-- any Guardsman (or -woman!) who's been in since 2004 has probably been to the sandbox at least once. I think we are supposed to be on a 5 year rotation cycle, but who knows what the cupcakes up in D.C. will do next. 2/3 veterans is a good guess, and tracks closely with my unit. To get back to the original story, when I read it, my BS alarm tripped at the chow hall story. It dosen't matter how big an a**h**e u are, nobody puts down the wounded like that. As I am in an armored cav unit, the BS abt running over dogs with a Brad just confirmed that the writer is not combat arms, and prolly not military. See above comments about S1 denizens about lingering uncertanty. |
| Posted by: N Guard 2007-07-25 20:33 |
| #20 Sorry abt snarling at you, Lotp... I still run into the occasional &^%*&%&$ who thinks that we are (still) a bunch of fat "weekend Warriors". The old Guard, with beer in the coolers at AT died shortly after desert storm. Most of the stuff you are thinking about WRT lack of training, range time, etc. turned up during the run up to Desert Shield/Storm back in '91. BTW-- If you come to our pistol range, you will have to make do with an issue M9. Personal weapons are absolutely forbidden nowadays. I could tell you about some of the incidents back in the day, when we did allow personal weaps, but I don't think fred's bandwidth will stretch that far. |
| Posted by: N Guard 2007-07-25 20:16 |
| #19 As far as it goes, I remember with great clarity the end of the N Guard "volleyball units" when Reagan came into office. It was made abundantly clear that the N Guard was no longer going to slack off. And this was doubly changed with GWI, when Guard units that had improved were found to still need a lot more work before deployment--and that they were going to get it. Right now, there are a lot of Guard units sporting more new hard earned combat decorations of the type and number not seen since WWII, if then. I gather at least 2/3rds of all Guardsmen have done at least one tour in theater. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-07-25 19:05 |
| #18 My nominee for a Fiskie Award |
| Posted by: Zorba Elmaise4368 2007-07-25 19:03 |
| #17 I prefer not to put my semiotics or my other bodily fluids on public display like this....8p |
| Posted by: Whealet Poodle1867 2007-07-25 18:09 |
| #16 I prefer not to put my semiotics or my other bodily fluids on public display like this....8p |
| Posted by: Whealet Poodle1867 2007-07-25 18:09 |
| #15 ...consulting semiotician... The game's afoot, Datsun! |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-07-25 17:19 |
| #14 My test is always the same: When called a liar or fraud present immediate truth to the contrary. Imagine how good a LLL Moonbat would feel telling the entire Right-Wing Blogspere that: "Not only I am in the military in Iraq right now, but these stories happened who, what, when, where, and how." When I see a delay or silence I know that something is not right. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-07-25 15:52 |
| #13 I left a comment on the discussion thread, saying "My daughter (that would be Cpl. Blondie, USMC) about fell over laughing at the story of running over sleeping dogs with a Bradley... And she zeroed in on the matter of supervision. There is always an NCO about, somewhere, or an officer. Junior troops just do not diddy-bop around like kids playing hooky from school. Absolutely nothing in the military happens in a vacuum. There is always someone else there, and when extraordinary events happen, there are almost always other people around who will also have a memory of them. Civilians often find this hard to believe; obviously Mr. Foer does. As a milblogger and a writer myself, I am still wondering how one can be in the middle of such an experience, and yet be so absolutely tone-deaf to detail in writing a personal account of it. It should be the easiest thing in the world to write something fascinating and revealing, if you are in the middle of extraordinary events. Just look around; see, hear, feel, smell, siphon up your friends’ experiences and reactions. It shouldn’t be that hard to get the small details right, at least right enough that other veterans who have been there can nod their heads and say, “Yep… that’s what it felt like.” It’s kind of sad, when you think of it. All that tuition, just to mince up and re-hash outtakes from “Full Metal Jacket” and “Platoon”, for the titillation of the other groupies in the workshop." |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2007-07-25 15:45 |
| #12 And, re: pistols -- may i bring my own to range training? I enjoy my little 9mm Sig, can bring my own civilian version of the M9 instead, but will have to ask Mr. Lotp if he would mind my bringing anything of his with higher firepower. FWIW I did qualify (barely) at the Expert level with the M9 a couple years ago but I'm rusty these days. I will, of course, police up my brass and help out with weapons cleaning thereafter. Dawn is a lovley time to be an outdoor range .... cheerfully |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-25 13:30 |
| #11 OK, I confess ... USAF (ret) wife who also is working with/for the regular Army these days. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-25 13:26 |
| #10 No slur intended, N Guard. You have my apologies and my deepest respect for your service and your skills. I do believe that, at the start of hostilities in Iraq, some of our guardsmen had not had the chance to do much live fire training. It was with that in mind that, while trying to find a scenario for a 'soldier' who was in uniform but didn't even have the basics down of how a Bradley does or doesn't move (for instance), I speculated that perhaps "Scott Thomas" was such a guardsman who served briefly and early on in some staff capacity. I know that since 2003 a lot of effort has gone into providing our Guard units the training they deserve to prepare them for the very real and critically important roles they are playing in our current operations. If I was wrong regarding training prior to then, please accept the apology of this USFA (ret) wife for her ignorance. ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-25 13:26 |
| #9 It isn't that hard to find one or two souls that are little more than uniformed civilians. Any Bde. or higher S1/G1/J1 shop can have inmates that never go outside the wire, for example. Lotp, sir, I will have you know that the era of the "poorly trained National Guardsman" ended in the last century. There is a lot of effort expended by Guardsmen to keep well trained and prepared, for we KNOW we will have at least 1 tour in the sand box per enlistment. You, and anyone else who speaks such slanders about the Guard have a standing invite to deploy with us on one of our tours. Or to pistols at dawn, if you prefer. |
| Posted by: N Guard 2007-07-25 13:18 |
| #8 WOW |
| Posted by: Total War 2007-07-25 12:43 |
| #7 Interesting analysis. It is also the only thing I have ever read with the word 'semiotics' that was not complete verbose twaddle. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-07-25 12:30 |
| #6 Possibly a national guardsman with limited training? I dunno, it still doesn't add up to me. But Barnes really nails some of what rings wrong in the Scott Thomas articles. The lack of emotion plus the lack of sensory details - nobody in his stories hug, mock-punch, yell, tease, blow off anger etc. except when doing Really Bad Things to Victims. Doesn't match the soldiers I know at all, especially in the combat arms, who tend to be pretty kinesthetic and colorful. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-07-25 07:35 |
| #5 I think he did, too. Hurray for experts in all sorts of arcane things. But I still am wondering how a soldier actually serving there, even if just for a short time could manage toget so many details absolutely, positively wrong! |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2007-07-25 07:30 |
| #4 Damn! I think he nailed it. |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-07-25 06:27 |
| #3 Heh. Pretty much how I imagined it, only this guy really hit the nail on the head and had the experience to back it up. The whole essay screamed "Northeastern liberal elitist with a bit of experience making stuff up and passing it off because nobody can challenge his authority". |
| Posted by: gromky 2007-07-25 05:13 |
| #2 That article is worth the read. |
| Posted by: Penguin 2007-07-25 01:06 |
| #1 Wonder if he would take a stab at the semiotics of Rantburg... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-07-25 00:08 |