US:To defend the veracity of reports of army life from neocon scepticism, a US soldier has come forward, writes Howard Kurtzin Washington
A controversial anonymous "Baghdad Diarist" blogger for the US magazine the New Republic has identified himself as Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an US army private in Iraq, and disputed as "maddening" accusations that he had invented his accounts of cruelty by American soldiers.
The magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Pte Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staff journalist, and that is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer".
Mr Foer also said Pte Beauchamp "has put himself in significant jeopardy" and "lost his lifeline to the rest of the world" because military officials have taken away his laptop, cellphone and e-mail privileges.
As both the military and the magazine investigate Pte Beauchamp's allegations, a personal blog surfaced in which Pte Beauchamp said last year that each morning he feels "retarded for joining the army", "a little more liberal than the day before", and "a tool for global corporations".
In a statement posted on the New Republic's website, Pte Beauchamp said his columns for the magazine, written under the name Scott Thomas, were "one soldier's view of events in Iraq" and were "never intended as a reflection of the entire US military".
"It's been maddening, to say the least," he added, "to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join.
"That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name."
Pte Beauchamp did not provide any documentation for his three published columns.
His writing was challenged by the neoconservative Weekly Standard and conservative bloggers after he wrote vividly, and profanely, of soldiers mocking a woman disfigured by an injury, getting their kicks by running over dogs with Bradley Fighting Vehicles and playing with Iraqi children's skulls taken from a mass grave.
Mr Foer said the magazine is attempting to confirm every detail. "We are trying to be as deliberate and meticulous as we possibly can," he said. "We're not going to be rushed into making any sort of snap judgment."
Pte Beauchamp is a member of Alpha Company in the army's 1st Infantry Division, serving at Forward Operating Base Falcon in Baghdad.
He said he did not use his full name, "because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal".
Maj Kirk Luedeke, a spokesman for the base, said by e-mail: "We are conducting a formal investigation into the allegations made by Pte Scott Thomas Beauchamp in the New Republic so, given that situation, I am unable to comment on the matter until the investigation is complete."
In his blog, called Sir Real Scott Thomas, Pte Beauchamp quoted vice-president Dick Cheney as explaining in 1991, when he was defence secretary, why the United States ended the Persian Gulf War without taking Baghdad. Pte Beauchamp added that, "we laugh harder at CSPAN than comedy central. Silly Republicans."
Pte Beauchamp, who was based in Germany when the blog entries were posted in 2006, described his career this way: "I shoot, move, communicate, and kill . . . the deaths that I inflict secure the riches of the empire."
As conservative bloggers continued to challenge the veracity of Pte Beauchamp's accounts, Mr Foer said: "It is really unfortunate that someone like Scott, who was really only trying to tell his particular story, has become a pawn in the debate over the war and the Weekly Standard's efforts to press an ideological agenda."
Weekly Standard writer Michael Goldfarb responded: "The piece struck me as implausible, and what we did is to raise questions that are completely legitimate. There's nothing ideological about raising these questions when people make claims and don't back up the charges." - (LA Times-Washington Post)