| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| New Republic Magazine Recants Its Support for Iraq War |
| 2004-06-19 |
| From The Washington Post Ever since the New Republic broke with liberal orthodoxy by strongly supporting President Bush’s war with Iraq, the magazine has been getting a steady stream of e-mails from readers demanding an apology. Now the left-leaning weekly has admitted that it was wrong to have backed the war based on the administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. "We feel regret, but no shame. . . . Our strategic rationale for war has collapsed," says an editorial hammered out after a contentious, 3 1/2-hour editors’ meeting. "I wanted the editorial to be honest not just about the war and other people’s mistakes but our mistakes," Editor Peter Beinart says. "We felt we had a responsibility to look in the mirror." .... Executive Editor Fred Barnes, who visited Iraq in March, says he "came back more pessimistic than when I left. Winning the war was one thing, but winning a peaceful and democratic Iraq is a lot harder than we thought." The New Republic’s issue next week features reappraisals (with varying conclusions) by owner Martin Peretz and literary editor Leon Wieseltier, Beinart, Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum and Sens. Joe Biden and John McCain, among others. The magazine’s editorial dances up to the line of saying it was a mistake to support the war, but doesn’t quite cross it. "The central assumption underlying this magazine’s strategic rationale for war now appears to have been wrong," it says. Even without nuclear or biological weapons, Hussein may have still been a threat, "but saying he was a threat does not mean he was a threat urgent enough to require war." In fact, "waiting to confront Iraq would have allowed the United States to confront more immediate dangers. . . . Because our military is stretched so thin in Iraq, we cannot threaten military action in Iran or North Korea." There were indications early on that some of the administration’s evidence was shaky, says the editorial, and "in retrospect we should have paid more attention to these warning signs." The New Republic then retreats to its second argument, the "moral rationale" for war against one of the "ghastliest regimes of our time." But even on this more favorable turf, the administration’s mistakes, including having "winked at torture," means that "this war’s moral costs have been higher than we foresaw." John Judis, a New Republic senior editor, disagreed with the editorial and felt it should have gone further. He had argued before the war that there was insufficient evidence that Hussein posed a nuclear threat. In light of subsequent events, he says, "I feel vindication." As for the moral case for war, Judis says, "I found Saddam Hussein’s regime as abhorrent as anyone. But I thought there were a lot of historical reasons to doubt that the U.S. going it alone, or with Britain, could create a regime in the Middle East in our own image. I don’t see any reason for believing that things will get better." The battle lines for the internal debate were drawn. Beinart is a charter member of the liberal hawks club, but much of the staff is more dovish. At one point, participants say, one staffer declared that the war effort had been a total disaster, prompting an impassioned plea from others, including hawkish foreign-affairs writer Lawrence Kaplan, that they shouldn’t give up hope. Peretz, who may be the magazine’s strongest supporter of the war, argued against going too far. "I don’t think the New Republic owes anybody an apology," Peretz says. "There were some things we were mistaken about, like believing there were WMDs, but my piece lays out an argument for the war independent of that mistake. These apologies are silly." But he welcomes the editorial, adding: "I would have written it slightly differently." Among the other contributors, some, like Zakaria, admit error: "The biggest mistake I made on Iraq was to believe that the Bush administration would want to get Iraq right more than it wanted to prove that its own prejudices were right." Wieseltier goes further than the editorial, saying flatly: "If I had known that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I would not have supported this war." He says he has "come to despise" some of the officials running the war. Others, like McCain, stand their ground: "Even if Saddam had forever abandoned his WMD ambitions, it was still right to topple the dictator." Beinart, who in a signed column rips the conservatives who promoted the war, now contends he was misled by the administration. "I feel furious," he says. "If the administration had been less duplicitous, we and others might have recognized that Saddam didn’t have nuclear weapons. . . . Maybe we were naive, but I didn’t think they would lie to that extent." Beinart still believes that things may turn out all right in Iraq. But, he concedes, "we may have to go back and do another editorial a year from now." |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #8 Now the left-leaning weekly has admitted that it was wrong to have backed the war based on the administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Yawn. How about the idea of draining the Middle Eastern swamp? Executive Editor Fred Barnes, who visited Iraq in March, says he "came back more pessimistic than when I left. Winning the war was one thing, but winning a peaceful and democratic Iraq is a lot harder than we thought." Nobody said is was going to be easy. Something to remember though, is that "harder" != "impossible". Beinart still believes that things may turn out all right in Iraq. But, he concedes, "we may have to go back and do another editorial a year from now." Peretz says it best: "There were some things we were mistaken about, like believing there were WMDs, but my piece lays out an argument for the war independent of that mistake. These apologies are silly." |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-19 4:37:53 PM |
| #7 B - don't insult cats like that! My pussycat would tear that wuss apart. :-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-19 3:05:39 PM |
| #6 If the administration had been less duplicitous, we and others might have recognized that Saddam didn’t have nuclear weapons. Beinart must be a class-1 moron, since no one ever said Saddam had nuclear weapons. The only "lies" being told are coming from the left. Oh, but I forgot -- The New Republic is a lefty mag. Naturally they have to buy into all the lies. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-19 2:50:57 PM |
| #5 editor is a pussy. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-19 1:08:27 PM |
| #4 Oh, ferchrissakes, is there anything the Left won't do to trash Bush and bolster Kerry? What a bunch of leftist clueless losers (but I repeat myself). |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-06-19 11:07:37 AM |
| #3 Hugh Hewitt ripped them a new one yesterday over the same column |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-19 11:00:15 AM |
| #2 Fred, I suggest that your Preview page indicate the page where the article will be posted. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-06-19 10:58:04 AM |
| #1 I meant to put this on page 1. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-06-19 10:54:36 AM |