As a friend just pointed out to me, it's not that they're out to discredit the war in Iraq by arguing that U.S. troops are committing all kinds of awful atrocities. (If you want to know what a magazine that takes that line looks like, see this cover feature in The Nation.) It's that they're seemingly terrified of actually saying anything about the war in Iraq now that everyone else on the left seems to have given it up for lost. In the months since they cautiously endorsed staying the course with the current military strategy, they've published very, very little about Iraq: the pro-war liberal Kenneth Pollack's case for a "surge in bureaucrats" to complement the current military strategy and the anti-war conservative Andrew Bacevich's skeptical look at General Petraeus's prospects for success have been the only pieces, so far as I can tell, taking a strong position on some aspect of the current conflict. And this silence has made it easier to read Scott Thomas Beauchamp's minor Diarist piece not as an embarrassing editorial mistake, but as The New Republic's grand statement against the war.
« She's Right, I'm Wrong | Main | American Exceptionalism » TNR's Real Problem07 Aug 2007 12:18 pm Comments (26)
TNR was willing to accept lies and not bother to check them out. If Confederate Yankee can get information from the Army I would assume TNR could also. 
I may be misinterpreting you, but do you think it's a bad thing that an anti-war magazine might report on some of the uglier behavior of soldiers in Iraq as a way of discrediting the war? It seems perfectly legitimate to me to say, "Look, this is what war does to people, which is one reason to avoid or end it."
But why would anyone, at this point in the Iraqi, trust information given to it by the Army? In the course of this war, the military has been repeatedly caught fibbing, exaggerating, downplaying, spinning, etc. (And that's one thing armies do in wartime--they tell lies to bolster morale in the field and at home. Surely no one is surprised by this.) Consequently, for those interested in truth, it is a good thing for reporters and news outlets to try to get a story without depending 100% on the military for the information. The weird thing to me about the Scott Thomas affair was that it was deemed such a repugnant, unrealistic slander on the good name of soldiers. This after we've already had soldiers tried and jailed for torture, abuse, rape and murder of prisoners and civilians. That some soldiers act very badly during war strikes me as the most banal assertion one can make. That some soldiers in foreign countries, fairly alienated from the population for whom they fight (by language and custom), and away from the disapproving eyes of parents and families and communities, might act in inappropriate ways that cross the line also seems profoundly unsurprising. (Hey, frat boys and anonymous blog comment posters also cross lines of behavior, for more-or-less similar reasons.) I agree that TNR might be skittish about the war--their support for it has earned them the type of relentless criticism from the left that most mainstream news outlets are used to getting from the right. So I agree that this might have lead them to pull back on taking stronger positions on the war. But if persons mistakenly assigned greater importance to Scott Thomas's diaries because of this, that is a mistake on the part of the readers, not the magazine.
You've been saying that TNR couldn't possibly have been looking for somebody to write a certain sort of story promoting a certain narrative (coincidentally just the sort of narrative that Beauchamp was pushing on his blog long before he got to Iraq) because they were in favor of the war back at the beginning- at least that's one argument I seem to be hearing from you. Somebody else has pointed out that Sullivan's changed his tune, too. But here's my question- for the above argument to work, TNR would have to be an independently sentient being that never changes its mind- because you talk like TNR is a thinking entity independent of the views of its editors and writers. Are all those editors and writers on staff now the same people who were on staff then? No? Was Foer the editor back when TNR was in favor of the war? If not, isn't it a bit disingenuous to insist that there's something ludicrous about thinking TNR's editor pretty much knew what sort of narrative Beauchamp would be writing in advance (since that's what he was already writing on his blog) and that's why they chose him? TNR's lies bother me more than Beauchamp's. Foer et all said they fact checked it, and it has become increasingly clear that they didn't. That is offensive. Later when they finally did get around to doing something more like real fact checking, Foer et al insisted that anonymous people confirmed the story- but why should we take Foer's word for it when the TNR staff have already lied to us about fact checking it? That they assume we should is doubly offensive. Why didn't they use any real names (we didn't even get a name for the Bradley spokesperson)? Regarding just the Bradley story- all they seem to have confirmed (and this is giving them the benefit of the doubt) is that a Bradley can run over a dog- which was not ever the issue. The issue was 'Can the driver of a Bradley *see* outside his vehicle in the manner Beauchamp described in order to deliberately run a dog over?" Foer and company don't seem to have asked that question. I could go on with all the things wrong with Beauchamp's stories, but the real issue is TNR's editors insisting that they had done their homework and checked things out when they clearly had not. TNR, don't have the time or resources to do that fact-checking? Then do not lie to me as though I am a gullible child and tell me that you have done what you cannot do.
What Ashish said--it seems pretty obvious to me that the only criterion by which the Nation article should be judged is whether the stuff in it is true or not. Maybe you didn't mean to imply otherwise, I can't tell.
this silence has made it easier to read Scott Thomas Beauchamp's minor Diarist piece not as an embarrassing editorial mistake, but as The New Republic's grand statement against the war. That's beneath you. To call that piece a grand statement on anything is just ridiculous. It was an end-of-book nothing. That doesn't mean that it is alright for it to contain inaccuracies, but to say that it is TNR's current statement on the war is simply foolish and obtuse.
Ashish, It's legitimate criticism (whatever that's supposed to mean), but it's also sophomoric, no? War is bad? War does bad things to people? Not exactly novel insights. The awfulness of war is a given. Unless your position is "all wars are unjustified because all wars are ugly," the fact that war sucks has nothing to do with "discrediting the war." Succinctly: when distinguishing which wars are just and which are unjust, category universals can do nothing to illuminate the answer. "Cost accrues!" is the uninteresting in the extreme.
"The awfulness of war is a given." Tell that to Ace of Spades or Bill Kristol, because I think they missed the memo. When one side consists of people who consistently underestimates the costs of war--moral and financial--then pointing out those costs is a valid argument.
Dan Miller wrote: "'The awfulness of war is a given.'" "Tell that to Ace of Spades or Bill Kristol, because I think they missed the memo. When one side consists of people who consistently underestimates the costs of war--moral and financial--then pointing out those costs is a valid argument." Indeed, I think the reaction to Scott Thomas's piece speaks to that. People (universally from the pro-Iraqi War right) acted shocked that (some) soldiers fighting in Iraq might act in ways displaying callousness and insensitivity, contra the past behavior of (some) soldiers in every war in history. Their denial that the events described could even be possible shows their fundamental dishonesty and their shameful tendency during this war to shrink from unpleasant truths.
When one side consists of people who consistently underestimates the costs of war--moral and financial--then pointing out those costs is a valid argument. It's not valid when you don't weigh those costs against anything else, which is what typically happens. Are the costs high historically? Are they high compared to the costs born while Saddam was in power? Are they high compared to the costs born by our enemies? Are they high compared to the costs of us leaving the theater? Are the bad actions of a few representative, or abberrations? Etc. And as JA said, it's still not an "argument" - it's merely an emotional appeal. Their denial that the events described could even be possible shows their fundamental dishonesty and their shameful tendency during this war to shrink from unpleasant truths. Who claimed the events were impossible on their face? More to the point, who claimed that soldiers never do bad things during a war? Speaking of unpleasant truths, how many anti-war folks have described the barbarity of al Qaeda in Iraq? (Or al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as the NYT comically insists on calling it.) Would you rather have a few troops misbehaving, or would you rather have a bloodbath?
"Who claimed the events were impossible on their face? More to the point, who claimed that soldiers never do bad things during a war?" Some claimed that it was vitually impossible for Bradley Fighting vehicles to run over dogs in the way described in the memoir. (See http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjUwMWZiOGM2NjI4MTBlZDI0YzEyYzcwZjBiZjVhNjQ= )That objection was one of the facts that TNR checked out--by contacting the manufacturer of Bradley Fighting vehicles. As for the latter, I read no claims that soldiers never do bad things in wartime, but the howls of outrage over this report that some soldiers misbehaved implied a belief that our boys do not. That's what I find perplexing--even if it were proven that Scott Thomas's account was completely fabricated, the fact remains that some soldiers have acted and some will continue to act in inhumane ways--and some will perhaps be damaged by this after returning from the war. This is a cost of war and worth reminding people of--even if a war is otherwise just and necessary. "Speaking of unpleasant truths, how many anti-war folks have described the barbarity of al Qaeda in Iraq? (Or al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as the NYT comically insists on calling it.) Would you rather have a few troops misbehaving, or would you rather have a bloodbath?" Unfortunately for us, it is much more difficult for us to control our enemies' behaviors than for us to control our own. Your argument is like saying that we should not worry about the problem of police brutality because criminals are much worse than police. Obviously murderers, terrorists, beheaders, etc., are worse than people who make fun of disfigured soldiers, run over dogs, or taunt Iraqi children with water (as seen in the well-known YouTube video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXzpUawlEGQ). But Al Quaeda and various Iraqi militias and thugs don't answer to the U.S.A.; the U.S. Army, however, does. You seem to be making a utilitarian argument--some bad actions by U.S. soldiers is better than a "bloodbath." But has the presence of American soldiers prevented a bloodbath? It doesn't look like it from where I am sitting. And likewise, does the presence of American soldiers dampen violence, or does it in some cases, or over time, encourage violence? I am not wise enough to answer these questions, nor do I see any easy moral choices here. All I know for certain is that we, the American nation, are responsible for the bad things American soldiers do. We can't abnegate that responsibility by pretending that the bad things American soldiers do don't happen, which is what some writers at WS and NRO seem inclined to do.
P.S. Sorry about hijacking this thread away from the subject of Ross's actual post. I hate it when other people do that... so I shouldn't do it either...
People need to keep their eye on the ball and leave speculation about personal motivations out of it. The question is whether the pieces written by Beauchamp were true or false. He has confessed to the Army that they were not true. Therefore the pieces were false, right? Either Beauchamp lied to the Army. Or he lied to TNR? Either way, he is a liar. TNR now has a unambiguous track record. First Glass, then Daniel Goldhagen on Pius XII, and now Beauchamp. Not good.
Thomas Nelson: This was posted today on TNR: So I don't see how we can say for certain that Beauchamp has recanted. Likewise, even if he has, I don't know if we can say for sure that he has done so without coercion (for example, one could imagine a scenario where he is given the choice of recanting or being prosecuted). While the TNR has a record of false reporting and plagiarism (especially under the editorships of Andrew Sullivan and Michael Kelly), they do seem to have checked out this story pretty thoroughly. I could see a scenario where Beauchamp pulled a fast one on TNR, but I can't see why TNR would just pretend to check the veracity of the story. The downside risk would be too great.
Here's what I hear Ross saying in the post: Blah, blah and blah, blah.
The story by Chris Hedges in The Nation is true. I know that the truth hurts, especially if you support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The same people who turn a blind eye to the atrocity that is the American war in Iraq would be outraged if these things happened to them and their families. I feel confident that the people who think it is a good idea to occupy Iraq, destroy their property, and kill or imprison anyone who resists, would be very angry if another nation did that to our country. I still don't understand some of my fellow Americans who would be outraged if it happened to them but seem to think it's okay for us to do it to someone else, in another country.
TNR? http://www.neighborhoodcats.org/whatistnr.htm What does "Trap-Neuter-Return" have to do with politics, other than that's what we should do to all of the politicians in Washington?
This is the worse kind of propaganda. We are underdogs. I want this private This is not a game. I have read his works, It made me question our honor. I am not happy at all There is no room for heathens Not only I don't think so. I want this heathen walked out of the U.S. Army today.
Foer made a mistake in first appointing a misguided young man to be TNR "man in Iraq" and then failed to fact check the stories. But rather than admit their error, Foer and the editors started digging a very deep hole. I think Foer will survive this, but he has damaged his credibility severely. You guys want TNR to be right, but you know TNR screwed up badly. Sure it is a minor story--but it is fiction passed off as fact. And it does slander the troops (who are in harms way). Whether it was intended or not, it was an insulting story.
What makes anyone here think that the TNR article is incorrect? Certainly the military says that it is, but they would certainly say so in any case, because their job is to say what they think will help them "win", not to tell the truth. This isn't particularly unique to our military at this point in time - soldiers have always lied when they felt that it was "for the greater good", and it's easy to see how they could justify lying in order to preserve the public's apparent misconception that every one of our soldiers engaged in this war is polite and well behaved, when the fairly obvious reality is that soldiers during wartime do things that are horrifying to civilians - that's the nature of war. While it's entirely possible that the story is incorrect, it would be smarter to wait and see if there's some actual evidence, rather than to rely on an unsupported claim from people with a vested interest in undermining the article.
The IRAQ WAR is just the 'start' of the conflict against the burgeoning MUSLIM TERRORIST CALIPHATE. Our troops are fighting in AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, and eventually IRAN to prevent all women from wearing chodors and the 'fascism' of viewpoint/religion extolled by these 'towel-heads' punk-^SS WANNABES who hide behind a religion to justify muder and slavery!!!
Its funny to see all the liberals here with agendas forget reality. ITS ABOUT WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS STRETCHED AND NOTHING BUT BS. The problem with (alleged) writers these days is they are all trying to convert you to their point of view. Writers are without fail pompous, and overestimating of their IQ's. That's why they are all so frustrated. The New Republic has always loved those stories best, that tear down the white-male species. It's their little secret, that they think we do not see. There was GLEE in the hallways as they worked on this story and they rubbed their hands with anticipation when they exposed the US SOLDIER for what they believe him to be - a dumb white boy who would as soon squish a baby as watch a NASCAR race. But what are they? Nothing more than the same, without the guts to pick up a gun. If a conservative outfit had gotten that wrong, it would all be about truth and just here and little puds like Ross know that. But, what do you expect - look at the person. Gene Wiley
Why is Michael Savage posting here under the name "Gene Wiley"?
that most comments are ok with a complete fabrication says all there is to say about the left.
snesich, Chris Hedges is telling the truth? You know that?
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Well that's an awfully tortured spin.
How about TNR's problem is sloppy, lazy work?
Posted by Youza | August 7, 2007 1:13 PM