The truthfulness and authenticity behind the dreadfully disturbing war stories of soldiers and veterans is often questioned by skeptical listeners, wary readers, and even military personnel defending the army. The inhumanity, the despair, and the utter wretchedness depicted in tales of soldiers frequently frighten the untainted ears and minds of civilians, provoking a longing for disbelief, and a desire for blindness in the light of astonishing misery and unimaginable actions. Such skepticism surfaced with an article entitled “Shock Troops” published in the July 23, 2007 issue of The New Republic. Several disgusting events were illuminated in this article (preceded by an earlier piece by the same author entitled “War Bonds”), provoking intense incredulity from readers concerning the veracity of the story. Although the facts of the story perhaps do not parallel the truth, we must recognize the sentiment behind such tales. For the sake of legality, factual reality is necessary, but for the purpose of objective learning it is not the truthfulness of the facts that must be considered, but it is the sentiment behind such depictions that we must recognize. Perhaps a story fails to adequately follow the lines of authenticity, but this does not make the soldier a liar. It is crucial to recognize that the fog of terror and the chaos of war may prevent a soldier’s memory from being loyal to the truth, and the tales that are told must be recognized not for the authenticity of the events, but for the realness of the emotions that trigger the words of the storyteller, and what these words reveal about the nature of war.
The indignant readers of The New Republic could not fathom that the events depicted in “Shock Troops” could possibly be real. A myriad of arguments and articles were presented refuting “Scott Thomas’” (pseudonym) descriptions of such incidents as the intentional slaughtering of dogs, gross mockery of an IED woman, and making light of a mass grave filled with the skeletons of children. Could this have really occurred? Many readers believe not, and attack Thomas’ claims by stating that the stories are “highly implausible” (The Weekly Standard). Although such actions are terribly inexcusable, it is important that these accounts are not simply dismissed for lack of authenticity, because despite the questionable facts, the sentiment behind the stories holds immense importance in understanding the harshness of war. The terror one experiences in the face of war is evident through the stories soldiers return with, and it is not merely the events that we must consider, but the words that are spoken that we must delve into and learn from, without tripping on the question of veracity.
The events described in “Shock Troops” are definitely “shocking”, but can we not pry out the emotion upon which this account rests? These stories clearly illustrate the crude destructiveness of war while illuminating the personal affects that individuals experience. By reading war books such as The Things They Carried and All Quiet on the Western Front it is clear that war is devastating, and simply because these events are not “true” does not negate the sentiments described. Many war stories conduct a sense of dismalness and the horror of war, while accompanying these images with satirical humor. It is imperative that we read such stories not as an attempt to gain knowledge of events, but to gain insight into the minds of the soldiers and the nature of war itself.
Thomas, (his actual name is Beauchamp), “recounted some grotesque incidents in his columns, including his own mocking of a woman disfigured by the war” (The New York Times). His tales are not depictions of valiant acts of courage, or boastful accounts in which he dueled with death, but events that possibly bear shame. What can we draw from the words of Beauchamp? Questioning the validity of his words is one option, but it is digging into the meaning of the events is of much greater academic value. Beauchamp’s articles show us that war has the potential to twist minds and force people to do things that seem undoable, or unthinkable.
Much of the outrage that followed Beauchamp’s article stemmed not only from the effect that such an account may have on the credibility of the United States’ military, but the effect it would have on the image of America as a whole. The incidents described in “Shock Troops” are dreadfully immoral and greatly offensive, but did such events really occur? Where the truth lies is unknown, as there is evidence supporting both arguments. Yet the answer only truly matters if the law is involved. Prosecuting those who committed such acts must be separated from prosecuting the words of the author. Beauchamp’s article must not be recognized for the incidents it describes, but for what it reveals about the nature of war.
After the publication of “Shock Troops” and the indignation that followed, Beauchamp responded to the critics and stanch disbelievers that he had provided merely “one soldier’s view of events in Iraq” that were “never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. military” (Washington Post, p. 153). If such incidents are false, clearly the author should be held accountable. However, despite where the truth stands, the writings of Beauchamp cannot be disregarded due to a question of veracity. The emotions and the sentiment that may have triggered Beauchamp to write “Shock Troops” must be considered for their valuable ability to paint the part of the personality of war. Regardless of whether or not his stories occurred, clearly the scar of war stained his thoughts with crude and harsh memories, and illuminated the horrific nature of war, and the tremendous effects it has on the minds of soldiers.
In Tim O’Brian’s book The Things They Carried, he describes the nature of war stories, stating, “it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen” (p. 71). Due to the chaos of war, and the fright that it instills soldiers may be prevented from remembering the true events. However, it is this chaos that is the most important factor of a soldier’s tale, as it shows the readers and listeners the true characteristics of war, in all its violence, and in all its sorrow, while being in the midst of a pandemonium of bullets, gunshots and emotions.
All the chaos and all the sadness and all the pain and all the courage and all the love and all the beauty that embraces our world is fully released in the time of war. The words of soldiers and veterans, despite the truthfulness of the events they describe, must be regarded as testimonies of the nature of war. As a Vietnam veteran and storywriter, Tim O’Brian shows that “almost everything is true” while “almost nothing is true.” From this, we can learn that by stripping away the hard facts of the stories, there is a tender commonality between them all: war is unique. War has many characteristics from horrendous fear to amusing boredom. It is imperative that such stories are taken not for the knowledge of events, but for the sake of understanding all the personalities of war. As an objective learner, never having fought in a battle, and never having the frightening face of war stare me in the eyes, I will never fully understand the nature of such an unimaginable phenomenon. Thus, I must listen to the words of soldiers to truly learn about the nature of war. As Mr. O’Brian puts it,
War is hell, but that’s not the half of it, because war is also mystery and terror and adventure and courage and discovery and holiness and pity and despair and longing and love. War is nasty; war is fun. War is thrilling’ war is drudgery. War makes you a man; war makes you dead (The Things They Carried, p. 80)