More About the Goofball
03.14.2008 - 11:42 AMYesterday I wrote about Thomas P. M. Barnett, the author of the Esquire profile of Admiral Willam Fallon, head of Centcom, who resigned following the article’s publication. I have long known that Barnett is a goofball, but it turns out that I didn’t know the half of it.
Back in 1989, when one East European Soviet satrapy after another was collapsing, Barnett, as I noted yesterday, wrote a fawning article about the “shrewd and farsighted” Nicolae Ceausescu who had just been “unanimously reelected at the recent Communist-party congress” and whose “grip on power appears firm.” Two weeks later, Mr. and Mrs. Ceausescu were shot dead, and Barnett had egg — sunnyside up — on his face.
But what I did not know was that a few days after penning “Romanian Domino Stays Upright,” Barnett returned to the scene of the crime with another op-ed in the same newspaper, where he explained “Why Ceausescu Fell.” The beauty of this particular piece was that he failed to say a word about his previous analysis. Just a few weeks after telling readers about Ceausescu’s firm hold on power, here he was going on about the “people’s deep anger over their long history of oppression” and how Romanians became “ready to choose death over Ceausescu.”
This deft intellectual switcheroo evidently helped win Barnett an appointment at the Naval War College, “where he taught and served — in a senior advisory role — with military and civilian leaders in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Central Command, Special Operations Command, and Joint Forces Command.” The quotation comes from Barnett’s autobiographical statement, available on his website, a remarkable piece of self-inflation for someone whose accomplishments, like his analysis of the Romanian revolution, have arguably subtracted more than they’ve added to the sum total of human knowledge.
Another typical example. On his website, www.thomaspmbarnett.com, Barnett exhibits a consistent fascination with what he calls the “apartheid structure” of Israel. As a self-described “prolific blogger,” he has written numerous posts that are variations on the theme of Israel as “pariah state.”
One of them is an analysis of Israel’s laws of citizenship, which Barnett describes as “defined by blood or faith.” The “historical basis for Israel as a state,” he writes, “is to recollect that tribe that got spread all over the planet in centuries past, and it doesn’t get much more racial than that.”
But in the same post, Barnett then pulls a modified, limited Ceausescu:
Now, if I’m wrongly interpreting what it takes to be an Israeli citizen, somebody please correct me and much of this post’s logic will gladly dissolve, but it’s long been my impression that only Jews (defined by blood or faith) are eligible to become full citizens of the state of Israel.
If this proposition is false, and non-Jews can enjoy “all the same citizenship and political participation rights as any Jew living there,” continues Barnett,
then I withdraw this post entirely and confess my profound ignorance on this particular subject.
Of course, the readily ascertainable fact is that many Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and even Wiccans live in Israel and enjoy “all the same citizenship and political participation rights as any Jew living there.”
What can one say, except to ask why, when writing on a politically delicate subject, does this distinguished goofball disdain to do his research first instead of proudly parading his “profound ignorance”?
Michael Scheuer undoubtedly knows the answer to this question, and so, in his own way, does Eliot Spitzer. Obsessions and compulsions can get one into deep trouble, intellectual and otherwise.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
March 14th, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Yeah, he’s a hound dog. Be sure not to miss his “Pentagon’s New Map,” which can be downloaded as a PDF from his website. His specialty is coming up with simplistic analytical frameworks that sound substantial, like the “Functioning Core” of nations he depicts on the map, versus the “Non-Integrated Gap.” (He explains his success with DOD in terms of having posited the replacement for our Cold War analytical framework of East vs. West, First World Vs. Second vs. Third, North vs. South, etc).
But look at where the boundary lines fall, and consider whether you agree that Russia and Mexico are in the “Functioning Core,” while Israel and South Africa are in the “Non-Integrated Gap.” Brazil, Chile, and Argentina are in the Core; all of Central America and the Caribbean in the Gap. No distinction is made between, say, Costa Rica and Nicaragua, or between Jamaica and Cuba, or Morocco and Democratic Republic of Congo, or Indonesia and Iran — they are all in the Gap. There is a level of arbitrariness that makes Barnett’s formula — which I find mechanistic and ahistorical anyway — seem as shallow as the game of Risk (or, frankly, shallower: I like Risk, and tend to win it through layered strategies).
Barnett’s map, and the Core-Gap thinking behind it, is one that meets the needs of a senior military officer focused on a single problem in a single theater — as long as that problem is an expected one, like Iran-Iraq, or Colombia, or China, or North Korea. Turn Barnett’s map and model to outliers, like Israel, and its explanatory value collapses. I have to wonder if he has ever read anything at all about Latin America, much less been there, considering the unaccountable arbitrariness of his Core-Gap division there. The model breaks down over particulars too often to be taken seriously, in my view.
But it does provide a working framework for predicting the likely SCOPE and TYPE, if not venue, of future conflicts, and that is its value to the Pentagon (which Barnett has rather substantially inflated in his biographical comments). I’m not commenting on accuracy of prediction here, just model workability and coherence. Defense planning was an esoteric industry looking for a product in the wake of the USSR’s collapse, and Barnett rode the 1990s wave of “MTWs” and “MRCs” as our new basis for deciding how much and what kind of “stuff” we need to procure.
Barnett billed himself as “Playing Jack Ryan” (subchapter title) in The Pentagon’s New Map. Bless his heart. His website bio advises us that WaPo columnist David Ignatius calls the book “a combination of Tom Friedman on globalization and Karl von Clausewitz on war,” which does seem a bit odd since Barnett actually doesn’t analyze war so much as point out that there are reasons a-boiling out there why it might start. In this aspect of his vocation, he succeeds only in being less predictive than Bismarck, who at least foretold that the next big war would be prompted by “some damn fool thing in the Balkans.” Barnett’s prediction breaks down to “some damn fool thing somewhere,” which I think most of us could have come up with all on our own.
Check out the map, though. It is described as follows: “The map illustrates his cutting-edge approach to globalization, which combines security, economic, political, and cultural factors to do no less than predict and explain the nature of war and peace in the twenty-first century.”
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/Map_index.htm
March 14th, 2008 at 2:20 PM
With respect, I think you are using to broad a brush on Barnett. Back in 88-89, lots of people were getting the “stability” of the Communist regimes wrong–like the CIA and most–not all–analysts. I haven’t gone back and looked at the second article you cite, but would agree that it is a mistake–if not a fatal character flaw–to fail to mention that he had personally gotten it wrong. (BTW: I don’t think he was referrring to the Romanian election as a genuine election, but rather that Ceausescu still appeared to have the support of the Party. That crumbling of Party support was the early indicator that the regimes in Eastern Europe were starting to crumble.
Barnett does in fact speak to, and consult with, a wide range of DoD, Intelligence, and other gov’t agencies. You may agree or disagree with what he says, but the statement in the bio is accurate.
His citizenship blog statement is clearly wrong. But if you read his blog regularly (and I do–along with yours), he states pretty frequently that his blog is off the cuff, reactive stuff. His books (again, agree or disagree) are deeply researched. Like any geopolitical work, you can differ with the conclusions, and analysis, and emphasis placed on sources, but they are researched.
I would actually take it as a good sign that he admits ignorance of the citizenship laws, invites comment, and pro-actively states that if his factual premise is wrong, his conclusion is wrong. Lots of folks–particuarly in blogs–never get that far.
I say all this, by the way, disagreeing with Adm. Fallon’s views, his public airing of those views (I think Max Boot had it exactly correct in the LA Times this week), and Barnett’s views on Fallon. With all of that, though, I think some of your criticism goes a little too far.
Love your blog,
William Weisberg
March 14th, 2008 at 3:20 PM
barnett is is the typical pseudo-intellectual of the kind currently filling academia and government. anti-israel and and anti-semitism is their dogma de jour.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Once again, Mr. Dyer is right on in his assessment. I first came across Barnett’s work when he was discussing “The Pentagon’s New Map” on some late-night C-SPAN re-run a few years ago. Perhaps, “discussing” is too imprecise a word to describe Barnett’s self-indulgent, elitist, and self-congratulatory style. Barnett’s ego is fully on display in “The Pentagon’s New Map.”
As just one example, he derides the brilliant and insightful Robert Kaplan, writing “so when I hear journalist…I get more than a little nervous.” Of course, Mr. Kaplan’s books enjoy a much wider readership and offer a more realistic and engaged approach to world affairs (as opposed to Barnett’s theoretical, impractical, and distracting extemporized jargon). Not to mention, Kaplan is constantly surveying the realities of the battlefield and international politics–re-evaluating and re-assessing his own judgments as any true scholar should–in large part because he travels so extensively and frequently. All Barnett can do is snidely dismiss Kaplan as a “journalist” and an undeserving “real Pentagon favorite.” If only Barnett would make a comparable effort to challenge and re-think his own flawed assessments of world strategy.
So much for humility! Get over yourself, Mr. Barnett.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Good grief, what a bunch of weaseling around by Barnett over something that is fairly google-able, the business of Israeli citizenship.
You’d think an intellectual of his level would have just looked it up rather than fulminate at length about it and then weasel around with the possibility that he just might have been wrong and will accept correction that is properly researched.
Why not just look it up before he flaps his yap?
He is one of the Scheuer types, so damnably self-confident and arrogant that he creates a body of work based on unresearched assumptions and then, rather than look them up (better late than never), he just acknowledges that he might be wrong and hopes nobody will call him on it.
One of the many forms of dishonesty that infect the self-promoting pseudo-intellectual crowd…
along with the inevitable anti-Semitism.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:37 PM
As is often said on this blog, and on Contentions, context matters. There is a difference between the level of–or whether any–research on B’s self-described off-the-cuff blog, and in his books and articles. What wouldl be inexcusable in the latter takes on a different caste in the former, particuarly when he admitted he really didn’t know, and that a different answer would lead to a different conclusion.
It also seems that most of the criticism leveled at his books involved his view and vision (for better or worse) on the world, not on the research (facts and figures) in them. Perfectly within bounds to disagree and critically analyze. But the ad hominem arguments don’t elevate that criticism.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:32 PM
William W.,
You are technically correct but your point is not relevant in the real world.
The honorable thing to do in such a case is to refrain from talking, rather than to opine as if your conclusions are compelling and forceful when they are actually just loose and speculative.
Barnett asks us to take him seriously on the one hand and to ‘never mind’ on the other. To opine seriously on weighty matters while simultaneously hedging yourself with ‘this could all be a waste of your time because I haven’t bothered to research this stuff’ is just a bit insulting.
The distinction between blog and published article is growing dimmer. To write in a blog, to expose yourself to screencaps and digital record and the like, is or ought to be the same as publication insofar as we judge writers as to whether we should take them seriously.
I know it is the same for me.
Rather than just add the hedge “I could be wrong, I dunno”, he ought to at least delete the erroneous material after researching his assertions.
Better still is to never post the errata in the first place. Research is called for here, and he didn’t do it. Lame.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Oh, and of course, the real story here is a predisposition to find problems with Israel. He uses the word “apartheid” purposefully, because of its strong emotionally negative connotation. To breezily say “oh, but I haven’t really looked into this, so ignore me if I’m wrong” is contemptuous and dismissive, innapropriately so; He pretends he has done no real harm by using that word, all’s well, never mind.
In truth, of course, every use of that word and others like it does more and more damage to the world’s view of Israel, drip drip drip, antipathy accumulating in the minds of millions. It’s why the Jews are so often accused by pro Palestinian speakers as committing a ‘holocaust’ and being “occupiers” and so on..
One cannot help but conclude this is the real purpose of such blog posts, articles and speeches; words mean things and words have power. You can’t unring a bell, put toothpaste back in the tube; accumulated damage is as good as any other kind.
If you dislike Israel. For whatever reason.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:35 AM
[…] that’s the question Gates posed, it was the right one. Given that Barnett is a well-known goofball, why exactly did Admiral Fallon collaborate with him? Selecting this particular journalist to write […]