What is sadly missing from much of what passes for war reportage and commentary is context. Anchormen have big floor maps where Uzbekistan lights up with the tap of a pointer, but what this kind of weather report journalism does not afford us is deeper perspective into the ideas and motives behind war. “War and Conflict” attempts to go past the play-by-play score-keeping to supply some analysis, and it tries to do so in a democratic manner. By speaking with many thinkers and journalists who espouse many different philosophies, “War and Conflict” asks whether the “War on Terror” is, among other things, an idealistic war of liberation, a war for oil, a war of civilizations, a show of power in the Middle East, a blue print for further wars, or a war of revenge. We are supplied with diverse insights that penetrate beyond the clichés and inflated language of a lot of war-speak, and Christopher Lydon does a good job of giving everyone their say while keeping things moving along.

Rather than neatly packaging everything up into a simple and clear picture, the show leaves us feeling like we do not know very much at all. One even feels that the people talking are wrestling with the subject; they are wrestling with their own role in it. It is not a manner of speech that we have come to identify as “expert-talk,” but it is a more compelling way to discuss the war, and it does not shy away from the obvious emotional level of the subject. I think “War and Conflict” would be an excellent, even necessary, part of any station’s war coverage.