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?