Fallows and the WSJ

James Fallows has a very in-depth story in this month's Atlantic detailing exactly what has gone so wrong in the creation of Iraq's own defense force. While wrestling with finals and developing super-secret Straussian interpretations of Machiavelli I have been making my way through the article. Expect a discussion of it soon (like in a week when I am done with finals), but in the meantime I feel the need to say a couple of things.

First, Fallows was all over the network news stations after Bush's speech, earlier this month Oxblog discussed how the article has become "the talk of the town" (the town being Washington D.C.). But all of these are meaningless when the WSJ starts attacking you on their editorial page. To me, this just seems like the ultimate indicator that the Fallow's arguement has had some influence. But what shows me that it also has enormous weight, is that the WSJ did not discuss Fallow's arguements, they just decided to attack him. Here is what they said:

In the latest issue of The Atlantic Monthly, for example, James Fallows purports to explain "Why Iraq Has No Army." But the public affairs office of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq (or "Min-sticky") says Mr. Fallows not only didn't visit but didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months.

Well, as you can expect this was just the ammunition that conservatives have been looking for (as opposed to the typically conservative Oxblog which decided to actually respond to his arguments) to discredit Fallows.

But, it turns out the WSJ's assertion is not true. At least that is what TNR's blog, The Plank, is reporting. The Atlantic's editor had this to say the WSJ:

To the Editor:
Your editorial about President Bush's speech latest speech on Iraq ("Complete Victory," Dec. 1) contains a false statement about an article on the effort to train Iraqi forces by our correspondent James Fallows ("Why Iraq Has No Army," Atlantic Monthly, December 2005). You said that according to the training organization, the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq, Fallows "didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months."

That is untrue. Mr. Fallows had extensive email correspondence, starting last August, with the Public Affairs Officer for that organization, Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Wellman, who arranged an interview with its commander, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus, in September. Mr. Fallows spoke with General Petraeus by phone for more than an hour, and checked quotes from that interview via Lt. Col. Wellman before using them in his article.

He also interviewed one of Petraeus's deputies, Colonel John Martin, and had not-for-attribution discussions, via phone and email, with other members of the organization. As Mr. Fallows pointed out in his article, and as he has records to demonstrate, the Pentagon's press office turned down his requests to interview Major General Paul Eaton and others who had been involved in the training effort.

At no point before printing this false statement did you contact Mr. Fallows or me to determine whether what you intended to publish was true.

Cullen Murphy
Managing Editor
The Atlantic Monthly

All I have to say is pwned.

-Mr. Alec