War apologists need to do more than just apologize
Neal Hebert
Issue date: 3/27/08 Section: Opinion
During spring break this past week, our nation had an important anniversary: the fifth anniversary of war in Iraq.
While many of us were celebrating, tributes were paid to the lives lost, mistakes made and regional progress celebrated.
To commemorate the occasion, the online magazine Slate.com asked pro-war pundits and opinion writers to discuss what they got wrong about the war. The results surprised me - both as a person and as a journalist - and raised issues more newspapers need to address.
Andrew Sullivan, a columnist for The Atlantic magazine and influential conservative, joined the group assembled by Slate. His Friday column was impressive: the content is heartfelt, and his regret is noteworthy because - thus far - no one else seems to feel the same way.
It says a lot about how far political commentary has fallen that Sullivan distinguished himself from other pundits by seeming to be one of the few decent human beings allowed to write for a national audience.
Unlike his contemporaries' responses - which include Salon.com's Ann Marie Slaughter who wrote a piece not featured on Slate, Jacob Weisberg and many other names with whom political junkies are familiar - Sullivan feels bad that people died.
"My misjudgment at the deepest moral level of what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were capable of - a misjudgment that violated the moral core of the enterprise - was my worst mistake," Sullivan wrote.
But for all of the things Sullivan gets right in apologizing to his readers for supporting the war in Iraq, Sullivan and most of his colleagues fail to answer the questions I most want answers to: Why should we continue to read columnists like Andrew Sullivan, given how disastrously wrong they were on the most important moral issue of the decade?
While many of us were celebrating, tributes were paid to the lives lost, mistakes made and regional progress celebrated.
To commemorate the occasion, the online magazine Slate.com asked pro-war pundits and opinion writers to discuss what they got wrong about the war. The results surprised me - both as a person and as a journalist - and raised issues more newspapers need to address.
Andrew Sullivan, a columnist for The Atlantic magazine and influential conservative, joined the group assembled by Slate. His Friday column was impressive: the content is heartfelt, and his regret is noteworthy because - thus far - no one else seems to feel the same way.
It says a lot about how far political commentary has fallen that Sullivan distinguished himself from other pundits by seeming to be one of the few decent human beings allowed to write for a national audience.
Unlike his contemporaries' responses - which include Salon.com's Ann Marie Slaughter who wrote a piece not featured on Slate, Jacob Weisberg and many other names with whom political junkies are familiar - Sullivan feels bad that people died.
"My misjudgment at the deepest moral level of what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were capable of - a misjudgment that violated the moral core of the enterprise - was my worst mistake," Sullivan wrote.
But for all of the things Sullivan gets right in apologizing to his readers for supporting the war in Iraq, Sullivan and most of his colleagues fail to answer the questions I most want answers to: Why should we continue to read columnists like Andrew Sullivan, given how disastrously wrong they were on the most important moral issue of the decade?
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 9
Student
posted 3/27/08 @ 12:12 PM CST
The reason these people get their columns is the same reason that idiot's like Donald Hodge continue to get column space in this publication.
hunter jenkins
posted 3/27/08 @ 2:15 PM CST
As a columnist yourself, you probably already know why these people get jobs in the first place. It has little to do with their reasoning abilities. They're hired to stir things up, create sides and sell papers (or magazines, etc). (Continued…)
Bob Weir
posted 3/27/08 @ 4:21 PM CST
Don't you worry your little head there Neal. I'm sure they'll keep the military an "All Volunteer" force for the near future. You needn't worry about you being put into a place where you might actually have to make a sacrifice for you country. (Continued…)
Sean
posted 3/27/08 @ 5:05 PM CST
Wow. Men and women of previous decades died in wars so that morons like Neal Hebert could have freedom.
Well, they are heros. Neal Hebert is still a moron. (Continued…)
Indy77
posted 3/27/08 @ 6:30 PM CST
Mr Hebert writes: "These are the men and women who told us the war would be over in no more than six months; that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators; that this war would not be expensive; and most importantly, that this would aid us in combating terrorism. (Continued…)
Jon Cogburn
posted 3/27/08 @ 9:06 PM CST
I for one want it to be noted that, contra Mr. Weir (didn't he also play guitar for the Greatful Dead?), Neal Hebert does not have a "little head." Though I have not been priveledged to measure it, I can attest that physically, Mr. (Continued…)
Post a Comment