Where Have We See This Before?

Howard Kurtz, in yesterday's Washington Post revealed the identify of the The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" as Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

From what I gather, he's a PV2 (or E-2) which is a bit odd for an infantryman. Back in the day when I was an infantryman (during the end of the Cold War) you came on board as an E-1 and graduated from basic and infantry training as an E-2. Within six months after that, if you had at least a couple of neurons popping, you would make E-3 (PFC). I would suspect during combat operations that rank would come faster. From what Kurtz recounts, Beauchamp's been blogging -- as an active duty service member -- since 2006. Which begs the question -- is he such a bad infantryman that his company commander is not promoting him until he hits the maximum time in service/grade requirements -- or did he have rank only to lose it in a demotion? Either event would explain that big chip on his shoulder.

But here's the part that floored me. His wife is a reporter-researcher for TNR. Think about it for a moment.

If you were to pay a visit to the Sand Hill training area at Fort Benning, where civilians are molded into infantrymen, you're going to see a lot of young men in their late teens and early twenties. A few will be married, some will have girlfriends, but most are unattached. Of those who are married, the wives are either unemployed or working in blue collar jobs back home and are looking to move to their husband's first assignment.

So how did Beauchamp score a reporter-researcher for a wife? Did they meet in college and if so, why didn't Beachamp go to Officer Candidate School? (The Army is hurting for lieutenants.) Moreover, why didn't the wife move to Germany when he was assigned there? (I'm assuming that the wife is working in NYC.) Something doesn't ring true but let's assume that true love reigns -- a reporter-researcher is going to face a lot of separation time with the spouse if he's an infantryman.

But here is where it gets interesting. According to the magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, Beauchamp's credibility was due in part to his wife. In Foer's words: ". . .part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer."

Let's forget for a moment that Beauchamp is probably biased and that his marriage is something of an outlier for military marriages -- where have we heard this before?

It wasn't too long ago when someone's wife asked her spouse to go overseas and report back on what he saw. In fact, didn't the wife suggest that her husband -- "...has good relations with ... and ... lots of ... contacts...could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." (Apologies for all the ellipses but I'm trying to make a point.)

I'm talking about Valerie Plame who had recommended that her husband Joe Wilson -- who may have went over to Niger as a former ambassador but returned as a Democratic party hack -- on an overseas mission to verify if Iraq was indeed pursuing weapons of mass destruction technology. Did that ever turn out to be a debacle -- for everyone involved.

Now fast forward a couple of years later and imagine a reporter-researcher telling her editor that her husband is in Iraq and he's seen all sorts of dreadful things. The editor, if he's like most of society, wouldn't know the life of a soldier any more than he would know how to operate a nuclear reactor, signs on. After all, the wife seems credible. Next thing you know -- in today's day -- there are lots of volunteer fact checkers out there and as the fate that befell Joe Wilson -- there are a lot folks out there proving you to be wrong.

You may have noticed that I never mentioned the wife's name -- she may be a covert operative after all and I'm not going to take any chances. The only question is -- who's side is she on?