William Lind’s bizarrely fraudulent review of PNM and BFA
Friday, January 20, 2006 at 7:14PM Found here: http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_1_20_06.htm.
Actually, it’s not a review of my books whatsoever, but a pathetic cribbing of Joe Nye’s Washington Post review of BFA. Lind gives the impression of having read both my books, but then, in a display of almost Frey-nian hubris, he gives numerous clues to the fact that he never read either volume.
Where I come from, they call this lying. I will call it intellectually dishonest and leave it at that.
In the end, it just saddened me that Lind is so fucking lazy, and it maddened me that in his profound arrogance, he doesn’t seem to think it matters or that he’ll get caught. From now on, whenever people write that I have a big ego, I will remember Lind’s diatribe not because it’ll make me feel better, but because it’ll put the fear of God in me. If I ever get this analytically fraudulent, I hope somebody whom I respect will pull me aside and tell me to quit embarrassing myself. Better to go out as Lou Gehrig than Barry Bonds.
And no, I won’t end it here. Because although I first received many reviews of Mr. Lind’s nasty attack, instead of simply cribbing those emails, I actually took the effort to sort through his bile, and frankly, I was shocked at how goofily off-base it is. The man clearly doesn’t anticipate being caught—just like our deer-in-the-headlights Mr. Frey.
Clue #1 that suggests Lind read neither book: there is nothing in his review that isn’t pulled or obviously extrapolated from Nye’s two paragraphs on PNM and BFA—not a goddamn thing.
Clue #2 that suggests Lind read neither book: he doesn’t mention the dominant military concept from PNM, or the splitting of the U.S. military into Leviathan and SysAdmin functions. Virtually no one who’s reviewed PNM has skipped that point, and given Lind’s approach, it absolutely stunning that he ignores it completely. Most 4GWers go apoplectic on this point, but apparently it meant nothing to Lind? Try to make that one go away, Mr. Frey—I mean, Lind!
Clue #3 that suggests Lind read neither book: he ignores my treatment of Fourth Generation Warfare in BFA (in which I mention Lind favorably and with real respect, no less), and my arguments suggesting its complimentarity with Network Centric Warfare. How in God’s name the great man of 4GW bypasses that challenge is just beyond me—unless he has no fucking idea it’s even in there!
Clue #4 that suggests Lind read neither book: the comparison of my future worth creating to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World wouldn’t be so comical if I didn’t attack that book for its dark view of history—in BFA no less! Quite the boner, that one. But let me double up here: the subsequent labeling as “soft totalitarianism” is equally queer but far more laughable. Mr. Lind has clearly never enjoyed writing a NYT bestseller (he complains that my books are “just the sort of patent medicine that sells”) if he thinks mistakes like that one can slip by, because people ACTUALLY READ MY BOOK!
Clue #5 that suggests Lind read neither book: his casual but uncertain lumping of me in with neocons. His cute little “(other?) neo-cons” reference is about the only honest sentiment he expresses in the “review”; I mean, at least here he’s expressing some doubt. If he had actually read either book, he’d been in no doubt of my opinion of the neocons, but I guess expecting Mr. Lind to rise above the level of your average Amazon.com blowhard was just too much.
Clue #6 that suggests Lind read neither book: his presumption that I see only states reigning in the current age of warfare. That boner only would have required him to make it aaaaaaaaaall the way up to chapter two (The Rise of the Lesser Includeds) in PNM. Christ, man! My ten-year-old son made it til the end! Doesn't the man have a staffer, like he once was on the Hill? I mean, some minion that makes sure he doesn't embarrass himself in public?
Clue #7 that suggests Lind read neither book: his two big criticisms (America will be exhausted and the result will be a socio-economic “hell on earth”) of my vision are ones I deal with explicity in chapter 5 of BFA. How about just a sentence suggesting he’s read anything of the sort? This one I give the old Hill staffer a pass on because it would have required he read a good 700 pages.
Clue #8 that suggests Lind read neither book: his contention that I think “restoring the state in places where it has failed will be easy.” His proof of this accusation? Oh, he quotes Joe Nye’s encapsulated presentation of my A-to-Z rule set on processing politically bankrupt states. That’s it. I know, I know. Why should I expect him to read a fairly substantial section of chapter 1 in BFA when there’s a wonderful one-sentence version that lands on his doorstep on Sunday morning? Cause if he had, he would have come across all those paragraphs where I say America can't go it alone, and that would have given him plenty to criticize, like my call for alliance with Russia and China (another 'outrage' to the Right that he lets pass by thanks to his dutiful ignorance regarding my ACTUAL text).
Clue #9 that suggests Lind read neither book: his assertion that I argue for regime change in Iran. I mean, come on! Can’t you even leaf through an Esquire now and then? They come to your mail box, for crying out loud! And the covers have been known to spruce up your average 58-year-old's day.
Clue #10 that suggests Lind read neither book: Lind has apparently never written about me or anything I’ve ever done up until now (some web crawler, please correct me if I’m wrong), and yet he magically comes up with a sweeping condemnation of both of my substantial and large books that is completely traceable to a Washington Post review that appeared only days earlier.
Gosh, do ya think?
William Lind is the Director (director, mind you!) of the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.
Lind has never served in or worked directly for the military (not that there's anything wrong with that ...), as far as I can tell, although he was famously an acolyte of Col. John Boyd, much in the same way I was identified with Adm. Art Cebrowski. Two years out of Dartmouth and Princeton (he finishes his masters in 1971 ... ), he seems to go directly to the U.S. Senate as a staffer for 13 years (1973-1986 for Taft and Hart) and then he went directly to the conservative Free Congress Foundation, where he's been for the last 19 years.
How's that for living in the real world? All Ivy League and then 32 years straight inside the Beltway. I feel like an outsider in comparison. No wonder he distrusts my capitalist instincts.
Lind's main claim to fame is that he co-authored, with a slew of active-duty and reserve officers, a seminal article on 4GW back in 1989. He published one military strategy book on his own prior to that (1985), co-wrote an attack on the U.S. military with Gary Hart, and now seems content to churn out his critiques of operations and strategy (unlike me, Lind-the-non-operator has no fear of critiquing operations or even tactics), and the occasional right-wing diatribe on "cultural conservatism," which his site defines as "the belief that there is a necessary, unbreakable, and causal relationship between traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values, definitions of right and wrong, ways of thinking and ways of living -- the parameters of Western culture -- and the secular success of Western societies: their prosperity, their liberties, and the opportunities they offer their citizens to lead fulfilling rewarding lives. If the former are abandoned, the latter will be lost."
Yes, yes, the barbarians are at the gate all right, and I'm the "soft totalitarian" ... How quaint.
Don’t get the impression I’m mad, because I’m not. Lind writes a lot of good stuff on 4GW, most of which--ironically enough--actually fits my view of how to shrink the Gap quite nicely.
Anyway, it’s actually fun when someone that pompous pulls their pants down, bends over, and dares you to put your size 13 up their big lily-white Beltway ass.
Thank you sir! May I have another?
Reader Comments (11)
there is no surer way of making someone your enemy than to announce you will remake him in your image for his own good. To many of the world’s peoples, what Barnett argues for in such blithe simplicity represents Hell, and they will fight it literally to their dying breath.
Happiness, in turn, is a product of endless materialism, consumerism, sensual pleasure and psychological conditioning. If that sounds like a good description of American popular culture, it is exactly that culture Barnett proposes to force down the throat of every person on earth, with the U.S. military serving as the instrument of coercion.
What Barnett’s books end up revealing is the combination of moral blindness and international political hubris that characterizes the whole quest for American world empire, a quest initiated by the neo-cons.
These three sections I think more than anything demonstrate that William LInd either didn't read or if he did, understand PNM of BFA. Before I begin, I want to say that I've yet to read BFA. I bought it a while back but due to the fact that I am completing my final thesis paper, I have not had the time to actually raead it. However, I did read PNM and reading Lind's critique of Barnett I could point to many instances in PNM where Barnett addressed the criticisms levelled by Lind.
In PNM Barnett states that to accept globalization is to accept change, that is you will have to change your rule-sets to match those operating in globalization's core and I guess this is where Lind gets the notion that Barnett wants to the world to resemble America's image. Barnett, however, also argues that he neither espouses nor advocates a return to colonialism or similar neo-mercantilist models to bring “civilization” to the “uncivilized,” but rather it is a call for America and the rest of the Core (defined as the pillars of globalization- the EU, Japan, China, Russia, India, Brazil, as well as other emerging markets) to build a new order whereby the Core can begin to shrink the Gap by providing a more equitable playing field for those new members joining the Core and a life line to those left behind in the Gap.
In addition, Barnett argues that although globalization is the greatest expression of the ideals behind the formation of these United States, once we gave it to the world, it was no longer ours alone, and it would influence and transform us, much more than we could ever hope to influence or transform it.
Lind also argues that Barnett's quest is for American empire, but what makes Barnett's book so appealing to me is the fact that he acknowledges and even encourages the rise of other powers to join the Core, even to the point of encouraging the US to make way for the rise of China. In short, PNM isn't about maintaining American supremacy, but rather of ensuring that the future world order is ruled not by Hegemons, regional powers or other forces, but rather by agreed upon Core wide Rule-sets (a sorta social contract) that govern relations between states. I see it in a similar manner as what the United States became, a country ruled not by personalities or strongmen but by the Rule of Law.
According to a Washington Post review of Blueprint for Action by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Barnett has a six-step plan to accomplish this:
This line from Lind's essay shows that he has not read Tom's books. I felt Lind's main reason for writing the piece was to attack the idea that we could change what is happening in the third world. Or, if we could, that it would be better. This paragraph gives him away.
This brings us to the third problem with Barnett: what his books advocate does represent Hell, or at least Hell’s first cousin, Brave New World. He would create an inescapable new world order that bears a remarkable resemblance to the one Aldous Huxley described in his short novel Brave New World, published in the 1930s – a “soft totalitarianism” where the first rule is, “you must be happy.” Happiness, in turn, is a product of endless materialism, consumerism, sensual pleasure and psychological conditioning. If that sounds like a good description of American popular culture, it is exactly that culture Barnett proposes to force down the throat of every person on earth, with the U.S. military serving as the instrument of coercion.
Lind sets up a "strawman" with his explanation of a goal of "happiness" as what Tom wants for the gap and being the goal of this country. Lind's definition of "happiness" is "you must be happy." What we do in this country is "pursue" our own happiness, not achieve it. And that is what we want other people to be able to do. That is the genius of the Declaration of Independence. It recognizes that freeing the individual is the key. Our need for "happiness" is infinite. We can never fill it. Pursuit of happiness is like a dog chasing a car. If we ever caught happiness, we wouldn't know what to do with it. :>)
Happiness, in turn, is a product of endless materialism, consumerism, sensual pleasure and psychological conditioning.
Lind really exposes himself with this line. People who view this country as being capable of being summed up like this really don't like our culture. I expect this kind of sentiment from a leftist Social Science Academic.
The best definition of happiness I know is:
"The sum of the positives and negatives in an individual's life at any point in time, weighted for distance."
I think Lind uses Barnett as a springboard to show his dislike of what he calls the "NeoCon" philosophy. But what really turns me off is his hatred of the masses. God forbid that the people in Bagdad and the rest of the world should ever achieve "endless materialism, consumerism and sensual pleasure."
Typical. Seems to me the Amish are getting by just fine in this totalitarian state.
Wow. I thought the first comment was not from Lind's review, but from a Barnett-hater. Lind is lazy and foolish. Tom: you were mad, but who cares? Not enough daylight to stay mad at people you should be mad at. Can Condi solve Iran or do we lose two of the first three battles of the GWOT?
It appears to me that Lind's review of both PNM and BFA is about as smart as my dog taking a leak on a fire hydrant, give me a break.
He obviously did not read either PNM or BFA (In process of reading, but school is really slowing me down) because Tom addressed those myths of America the Empire and America as GloboCop, etc. He gave what I believe to be intelligent and worthwhile answers. Lind needs to stop being such a bureaucrat and work for the greater good.
Just remember Thomas Jefferson's quote, "Error of opinion may be tolerated so long as reason is left free to combat it." Over 700 pages of reason to combat his error of opinion, maybe he should try reading some time.
John Robb at "Global Guerrillas" agrees with Lind.
"CONTRA BARNETT
The rapid rise of my global guerrillas -- the open source, system disrupting, transnational crime fueled, sons of global fragmentation -- is a cautionary warning on the limits of western power. As a result, my work is often placed in opposition to the work of the best selling author, Thomas Barnett (The Pentagon's New Map and Blueprint for Action -- well worth reading).
Barnett strongly advocates that the Pentagon should be reorganized into a factory for rapidly "processing" failed states into useful global participants (for which he provides an A to Z plan). The objective of this new capability would be to shrink the global "gap" of failed and rogue states to accelerate the end of history (in Fukuyama's sense). Unfortunately, Barnett's thesis has become increasingly central to the Pentagon's (Rumsfeld) and the Department of State's (Rice) planning for the future.
In my view, Barnett's formula would not only accelerate the exhaustion of the US (morally and financially), it would also be a catalyst for radically accelerating the development of global guerrillas. Fortunately, I am not alone in my opposition to Barnett's view. The father of fourth generation warfare (and a prominent influence of mine), Bill Lind, has put his wicked pen to a critique of Barnett's work (see Chet Richards' excellent DNI site for the full text). Bill steps into the breach and doesn't pull punches:"
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/01/contra_barnett.html
The hard-core 4GWers are so addicted to this notion of the declining state. They've taken an early assumption of the globalizaton crowd and run mindlessly with it. What they neglect to realize is that globalization only spreads where governments are strongest and that the most globalized states are the ones with the most rules, most welfare, most regulation, most workers benefits, etc. None of those states lives in a world run by terrorists, but the 4GWers would have you believe otherwise. This is chicken-littling of the sort I can stand, even as I think Lind (every so often) and Robb (quite often) say some very smart things. They just view the world through too narrow a lens, just like the Net-centric guys do, and both sides believe they see the world whole nonetheless (and if you tell either that they don't, they get magnificently pissed off!).
Tom,
Have you read Chet Richards' criticism of your work yet?
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni_reviews/blueprint_for_action.htm
Its much more intellectually honest than Lind's (it seems like he actually read the books) and he brings up some good points. Most notably, the argument that we still do not know how to rebuild states (extremely complicated with too many case-by-case variables involved) and that there is no formula for doing so, international SysAdmin force or not. Therefore, toppling and/or stabalizing remgimes will cause more Iraqs.
I personally disagree; I think our solutions to failed or rouge states have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, with the appropriate mix of participants, forces, skill sets, and resources. In m opinion, he is mischaracterizing your concept of "A-Z" rule sets. He also leaves out two other examples of nation-building examples, Japan and Germany, both of which have proved quite successful. He also ignores the many studies done on nation-building endeavors (notably the RAND one in, I think, 03) which try to isolate the variables and unknowns.
i can answer that, Andrew: Chet Richards on Blueprint for Action
Tom's seen it, but hasn't responded to it in depth yet.
I do understand that this reviewer really got your goat but I would have preferred your leaving the swear words out. It is beneath you, even when someone upsets you so much.
Finally got around to this blog and comments -- wow! I skipped Lind's article when it appeared, since I already considered him suspect by way of his Free Congress persona. Believe you well nailed him, but also congrats on finally reaching synthesis -- Lind, Robb, et al suffer a narrowness of vision because their work is generally centered on levels somewhere below systemic analysis -- maybe due to feeding too often at the government troughs located around the Beltway. Also agree with the previous comment -- I'm not regarded as a prude by my peers and colleagues, but I find your use of vulgarity --- well, the-ah-trical, as well as immature. Vulgarity evidences neither manliness nor honest emotion, when one has had ample time to draft one's comments. You don't have to sound like a knuckle dragger in order to impress me or anybody else with the truths of your vision or the validity of your experience and thought.