The U.S. Army is disputing all of the claims made by former University of Missouri-Columbia student Scott Beauchamp in essays for The New Republic about his experiences in the Iraq war, according to the results of the military’s internal investigation.

Beauchamp

"The allegations were found to be false," Major Steven F. Lamb, deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad, said in an e-mail to the Tribune. "His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims he made."

Less than a week ago, The New Republic released findings from its own investigation and said Beauchamp told the truth in his essays, except for one error in which he said events occurred in the wrong location.

At issue are three diary entries that Beauchamp, an Army private who attended MU from August 2002 to December 2004, wrote about his deployment overseas. The accuracy of his latest entry, titled "Shock Troops," was called into question by the political magazine The Weekly Standard.

"Shock Troops" was about the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war," the magazine said.

The New Republic subsequently decided to re-report every detail of the essay.

While completing its investigation, the magazine said it talked to dozens of people, including five other members of Beauchamp’s company, and all corroborated events in Beauchamp’s essays that they either witnessed or, in the case of one soldier, heard about contemporaneously.

In "Shock Troops," Beauchamp wrote about troops mocking a visibly handicapped soldier sitting near them in a dining hall. The magazine said it spoke with three soldiers, including the soldier who was with Beauchamp that day. The soldiers only refuted the location of the incident, saying it took place in Kuwait before the unit went to Iraq; Beauchamp wrote that it took place in Baghdad. The magazine said Beauchamp acknowledged his error

Witnesses backed Beauchamp’s accounts of soldiers finding children’s bones and one soldier wearing a skull on his head, the magazine reported. The New Republic also corresponded with a soldier who verified Beauchamp’s claim of a Bradley fighting vehicle driver intentionally running over a dog.

When asked for details about the Army’s investigation, Lamb responded: "We can go no further in explanation at this time other than to say an investigation was conducted."

Lamb also declined to comment on how or whether Beauchamp would be punished. "As for punishment," he said, "this is a personnel matter and personnel matters are not discussed publicly."

A message left for The New Republic’s editor, Franklin Foer, was not returned. Elspeth Reeve, Beauchamp’s wife and a reporter-researcher for The New Republic, declined to comment.

Advertisement