In the continuing story of Private Scott Beauchamp and the disputed, and partially discredited, “Baghdad Diarist” stories he wrote for The New Republic, there’s yet another wrinkle.
I’m not talking about the debates over the anonymous source who told The Weekly Standard that Beauchamp signed documents stating that he made everything up–something that no one, not even the Army, has confirmed–or how thoroughly TNR tried to fact-check his pieces before they went to print.
What I’m talking about is the intellectually dishonest narrative that is being injected into the debate; a narrative which holds that–against all evidence to the contrary–TNR‘s editors are anti-war lefties out to smear the military, and that the American media views American soldiers as bloodthirsty monsters. It is an argument based on assumption and conjecture, and a quick look at recent history blows it to bits. But that hasn’t stopped several columnists from intentionally ignoring the facts in order to score partisan points.
Charles Krauthammer weighs in on the issue this morning, asking, “Why did the New Republic run” Beauchamp’s story?
Because it fits perfectly into the most virulent narrative of the antiwar left. The Iraq war – ‘George Bush’s war’… has caused not only the sorrow and destruction that we read about every day. It has, most perniciously, caused invisible damage… It has perverted and corrupted the young soldiers who went to Iraq, and now return morally ruined.
That’s quite a statement.
The Weekly Standard‘s Michael Goldfarb, who has been all over the Beauchamp story, read from the same partisan cue card yesterday when he toldNewsweek–without a shred of evidence to back it up–that “this story fits really well into [TNR’s] narrative and the left’s narrative of the soldier as both victim and perpetrator of the war.”
But a piece by Jeff Emanuel in the National Review today really takes the cake. Emanuel (who is currently embedded with the Army in Iraq), seems–more than even mind-readers like Krauthammer and Goldfarb–to be able to glean the private thoughts of TNR editors and the press in general, which gives rise to an unintentionally hilarious bit of sloppy partisan posturing. He writes that TNR “offered stories by Beauchamp which validated their views of the military and of the war”
Emanuel has apparently decided that the press is convinced that the majority of American soldiers are little more than immoral brutes, and that stories like the ones Beauchamp told are “the rule in the United States military, rather than the exception.” If you think I’m taking this quote out of context, Emanuel makes this point two more times, each time failing to make even the most rudimentary attempt to back his charges up with examples of this monolithic mindset in the press.
He says further down that:
If one assumes that the magazine’s editors and its allies on the Left had been waiting for just this opportunity — an opportunity not only to validate their deeply held views of the American military…then its easier to see why they ran these articles without thoroughly checking them.” He caps his piece off with another shot: “members of the press are still searching for the Next Big Story which will show the military for the inhuman, war-scarred outfit they believe it to be.
All this TNR “hates the troops” stuff can be refuted pretty easily. But it shouldn’t have to be, since Krauthammer, Goldfarb, and Emanuel are all bright guys, and are therefore no doubt fully aware that they’re spinning some serious bullshit. That’s why they don’t even attempt to support their allegations with evidence.
All three, if pressed, would likely recall that TNR was a pretty big supporter of the war, publishing plenty of pieces explicitly calling for war in 2002 and early 2003. And Senior Editor Lawrence F. Kaplan can hardly be called an “anti-war lefty,” since he has written pieces as recently as a few months ago arguing against a hasty withdrawal from Iraq. The magazine even published an editor’s note in May supporting the “surge” of 30,000 more troops into Iraq.
The magazine’s support for the war was so strong in 2002 and 2003 that former editor Peter Beinart, who was one of the loudest voices advocating for invasion, very publicly backtracked from his original position last year. Similarly, in November 2006, an editorial by “The Editors” voiced regret for the magazine’s support for the war, but hardly took an anti-war stance:
This magazine has long advocated deploying U.S. power to halt the mass slaughter of innocents. Saddam Hussein distinguished himself at the mass slaughter of innocents: About this, there can be no dispute. Yet, in this case, we supported an invasion that has led to the same savage result…
The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war…American power may not be capable of transforming ancient cultures or deep hatreds, but that fact does not absolve us of the duty to conduct a foreign policy that takes its moral obligations seriously. As we attempt to undo the damage from a war that we never should have started, our moral obligations will not vanish, and neither will our strategic needs.
Just to be clear, I’m not defending TNR‘s decision to publish Beauchamp’s stories, as we’ve since learned that at least parts of them are not true. What I am defending is the importance of being an honorable broker of information when it comes to mounting an argument. Krauthammer, Goldfarb, and Emanuel are all writers who publish frequently. They know how to make arguments and deploy facts to make their case. That they are subverting reality with such sloppy and intentionally intellectually dishonest claims about the press is worse than being wrong. It’s being wrong on purpose. That is essentially what they’re accusing Beauchamp and TNR of doing.
Paul McLeary is a former CJR staff writer. Since 2008, he has covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News, Breaking Defense, and other outlets. He is currently a defense reporter for Politico.