# The New Republic magazine formally apologizes for supporting the Iraq War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2006, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republic-magazine-formally-apologizes-for-supporting-the-iraq-war/381261 "2006-11-21T06:34:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2006, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republic-magazine-formally-apologizes-for-supporting-the-iraq-war/381261/1 "2006-11-21T06:34:31Z")
Not really a debate, but kind of interesting [that even this guiding neo-con beacon is changing course.](http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20061127&s=editorial112706) > [@](#): > > At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom. But, as we pore over the lessons of this misadventure, we do not conclude that our past misjudgments warrant a rush into the cold arms of “realism.” Realism, yes; but not “realism.” 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. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2006, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republic-magazine-formally-apologizes-for-supporting-the-iraq-war/381261/2 "2006-11-21T07:04:07Z")
The New Republic isn’t exactly what I would call a “guiding neo-con beacon.” I’d say they’re more a very hawkish, neo-liberal magazine. Still, they were one of the ardent supporters of the war, and among those that gave the actual neo-cons the “liberal cover” needed to sell the war to the intelligentsia. It’s good to see them formally acknowledge their mistake. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2006, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republic-magazine-formally-apologizes-for-supporting-the-iraq-war/381261/3 "2006-11-21T07:11:49Z")
[QUOTE=MilTan] The New Republic isn’t exactly what I would call a “guiding neo-con beacon.” I’d say they’re more a very hawkish, neo-liberal magazine. Still, they were one of the ardent supporters of the war, and among those that gave the actual neo-cons the “liberal cover” needed to sell the war to the intelligentsia. It’s good to see them formally acknowledge their mistake. [/QUOTE] Err… “center-left,” not “neo-liberal.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2006, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-republic-magazine-formally-apologizes-for-supporting-the-iraq-war/381261/4 "2006-11-21T14:02:58Z")
[QUOTE=MilTan] Err… “center-left,” not “neo-liberal.” [/QUOTE] Calling them even ‘center-left’ at this point is, AFAICT, an overstatement of their leftishness. What exactly remains in the way of leftness in this onetime liberal beacon? On national security matters, they’ve pretty much toed the Administration line. Even this apology, they slam those to their left who were right about the war from the get-go (TNR is a charter member of the “it’s OK to be more conservative than we are, but not more liberal” crowd): > [@](#): > > Many Democrats have embraced a proposal called “phased redeployment,” a politically expedient way of saying immediate withdrawal. Their proposal, which calls for departures beginning in four to six months, doesn’t allow the time and space for the arduous work that a political settlement requires–the kind of agreement that will ultimately allow us to leave with the least damage to the Iraqi people and our own interests. “Many Democrats” would also like to try to save Afghanistan from being the next Iraq - but we have no more troops for Afghanistan unless we take them from Iraq. Needless to say, TNR ignores this. And they try to preserve their mantle as the hard-headed realists of the not-so-left, while simultaneously wishing for ponies: > [@](#): > > But diplomacy is not just a cozy exercise in endless speech acts. It, too, must be brutal: It must include threats and promises, alliances and coalitions–with the threat of being left out. Our ability, in that arena, to threaten is kinda meaningless right now. But in other areas, too, TNR doesn’t appear to be exactly left of center. They’re very much pro-free-market, pro-free-trade, and almost apologetic for suggesting any new limitations on economic forces to benefit the citizenry at large. They’re nominally socially liberal, but they believe that in order to win, Democrats must abandon their social liberalism. To the extent that they’re left of center, it’s the most watered-down, pussified left-of-centerness imaginable. Their _raison d’etre_ does seem to be to share their emasculation with the American left as much as they can, by attacking anyone to their left for having the nerve to be there. The recent election has rendered them irrelevant, which is the proper place for them. There are plenty of genuinely liberal magazines around, from the Washington Monthly and the American Prospect to Mother Jones. Nobody needs The New Republican anymore.