Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 25 June 2004

Last night on NPR's "On Point" show got a bit testy, largely because their in-house analyst, Jack Beatty, senior editor of Atlantic Monthly, insisted on constantly declaring all my ideas "incoherent," "impossible" and "dubious." Had he actually bothered to read the book? Naw. That would have interfered with his "expert analysis." Instead he glanced over the WSJ story and the op-ed I wrote for the Post.

It was an amazingly bold performance by Jack: pontificating with absolute assurance about how amazingly dangerous my vision was even though he hadn't actually bothered to look the book over. Makes you wonder if he also reviews movies he hasn't seen, plays he hasn't attended, and albums he's never listened to.

So, instead of real analysis from Jack, I got hyperbolic soundbites like "perpetual war."

Hey, wait a tick! Didn't I write an entire chapter about how to body slam blowhards who spout nonsense phrases when they have no command of the facts on the ground?

Good example: Beatty says my "diagnosis is dubious." He notes that the 9/11 terrorists did not come from unglobalized Afghanistan, but from very globalized Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon. He cites the numerous Victoria Secrets shops in mall frequented by the rich elite in Riyadh (sounds like some Tom Friedman in-depth analysis, yes?), the numerous Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets in Cairo (eat some KFC, become a finger-lickin' American instantly!), and Lebanon as the most cosmopolitan nation in the Middle East (hmmmm, in 1970 yes, but after two decades of civil war? Jack needs to visit Beirut again).

So I come back with a slew of statistics on trade, foreign direct investment, and such to portray the Middle East as unarguably the least connected region to the global economy—even more so than Sub-Saharan Africa and suggest that Jack's definition of a truly globalized society is a bit "distorted." I also note out loud that "Jack clearly hasn't read my book, because otherwise he'd have a better grasp of the data."

Jack has nothing to say about any of that, confirming my suspicion that his preparation for the show consisted of about 3 minutes of glancing over the two aforementioned articles.

The Brit subbing host, Julian Marshall, then asks me to describe the Leviathan-Sys Admin concepts, which I do in detail, and then asks Jack to comment on all those seemingly "can't-argue-with-that" ideas, but Jack dismisses all that radical restructuring of the U.S. military as just "tactical" stuff that he won't touch. Instead he says he wants to concentrate on "big picture" and then details how I plan to "scrap" NATO completely and how my ideas of allying with Russia, China, and India are complete madness since all three states have problems with Muslims already (apparently no overlap on issues to be found there). I, later in the show, counter with the reality of developing Asia's growing dependency on Middle Eastern oil, but Jack has nothing to say on global economics, as he prefers to stick with the "big picture" of why everything I say is complete balderdash.

The host lets me talk about shrinking the Gap at length and I describe the up-front role of FDI, but promos he recites later in the show ask whether my idea of making the military the "primary tool" of shrinking the Gap is dangerous, and will it lead to "perpetual war"?

Since I had given a very long answer at the start of the show regarding why the notion of "perpetual war" was nonsense, given a cursory reading of the global security environment (hell, I wrote a whole chapter on the subject), I started to get a bit testy as the show progressed. Basically I refused to answer one question on Iraq until I had a chance to blast them on constantly using the "perpetual war" phrase as a dishonest teaser to frighten the audience, and then I took both Marshall and Beatty to task for insisting that my vision called for "scraping NATO." I once again noted loudly that it was obvious that neither of them had bothered to read the book and were basing all this conversation on their readings of other people's criticisms of my work. Naturally, neither of them had any response to that, preferring to lecture me repeatedly on keeping my answers short and to the point! Apparently, I was just supposed to sit there and listen to them repeatedly describe "perpetual war" and my plan to "scrap NATO" and not refute either.

One caller is nice enough to call me a "total psychopath" who seeks a "force of little psychopaths" to carry out my "whacked out agenda."

Julian laughs and invites me to answer this "impassioned question," but instructs me yet again to keep my answer short (meaning no criticizing the hosts for being too lazy to bother reading my book whatsoever).

One caller from Green Bay WI (natch!) actually read the book, said he liked it, and gave me two great questions to deal with.

The show wrapped up with Jack Beatty once again decrying the myopia of my military-does-everything vision, saying a much better idea to shrink the Gap would be for the Core to end their high agricultural barriers to trade.

At that point I couldn't stand it anymore and started shouting into the microphone (I was in Providence, they were in Boston and NH): "Chapter 7 in my book! Chapter 7 in my book! You can read it all!"

Actually, I was mistaken in the heat of the moment. My description of that much-needed change in Core behavior is found on page 131 of Chapter 3, as well as pages 371, 374, 375, and 378 of Chapter 8.

You'd think "analyst" Jack could have actually come up with an example of what my vision really needed to encompass that wasn't actually mentioned a handful of times in my book, but perhaps I expect too much from lazy-ass journalists who moonlight on NPR.

Jack's only response to my pointing out that the very thing he accused me of lacking in my vision actually being prominent in my book was simply to retort, "Well . . . good!"

Then he noted how China was globalizing without presenting the U.S. with any security threats (hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar to me . . . I wonder if I managed to get that bit into the book), and I responded with noting that none of the 9/11 hijackers came from China, but from the Middle East—that disconnected part of the global economy that Jack believes is highly integrated thanks to KFC and Victoria's Secrets outlets—which is why the GWOT is logically located there.

Jack flustered silently at that point and was never heard from again.

All I can say is that if Jack's journalistic work ethic was on display, God help his bosses at the Atlantic Monthly.

You may think I ask for too much effort from NPR on this, but I figure, if you book an author for an entire one-hour show, you need to have someone there on the air with him who's made at least some effort to peruse the book here and there, and isn't simply relying on what other people have said. The reason why my interview with Brian Lamb was so good on CSPAN was because he'd actually read the book quite thoroughly. Beatty could have been honest enough (dare I say man enough?) to actually admit he hadn't read the book, something most interviewers do openly when that's the case, but instead he blustered on without fear, declaring me a serious threat to serious strategizing everywhere. Beatty is one serious, prime-cut blowhard, but as the WPRI station guy told me after the show (WPRI is the NPR affiliate in Providence where I was), that's basically Beatty's designed role when "On Point" has only one guest and that guest has strong views.

So what does Beatty really believe in? He's sounded more hawkish than Rumsfeld in the past, blowing major smoke about smoking holes in the weeks after 9/11, but since I was on last night and was clearly identified with the Bush Administration, he blew a different tune, claiming that the majority of Americans wanted Bush "impeached." Rumsfeld wannabe one year, Michael Moore wannabe the next—you gotta like a man of principle!

Still, all in all, the show made for good radio. NPR can be so boring sometimes it's almost good to go to sleep by. Last night's "On Point" was clearly an exception to that far-too-often rule, but I have to state again how disappointed I was by the cursory preparation the people connected with the show put into its production. Nobody likes blowhards, but lazy ones are downright nasty!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today's catch:

The military I have worked with over my entire career

"Ask Someone Who Was There," by Maj. Stan Coerr, posted at http://www.247profits.com/Sites/frontline/FrontlineUpdate20040618.html

"Time to Act on N. Korea," by Vaclav Havel, Washington Post, 18 June, p. A29.

"Iran's Nuclear Ambitions: Teheran will always want a nuclear option. Regime change can ensure it's not a threat," by Ardeshir Zahedi, Wall Street Journal, 25 June, p. A10.

"Mistakes Loom Large as Handover Nears: Missed Opportunities Turned High Ideals to Harsh Realities," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, WP, 20 June, p. A1.

"An Indian Paradox: Bumper Harvests And Rising Hunger: The World Has Enough Food, But Poor Can't Afford It; Grows Jobs and Crops," by Roger Thurow and Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, 25 June, p. A1.

"Deadly Assaults Push Iraq Closer To Martial Law: Attacks Kill More Than 100; New Government Prepares A Controversial Crackdown," by Yochi J. Dreazen and Greg Jaffe, WSJ, 25 June, p. A1.

"Errors on Terror," by Paul Krugman, New York Times, 25 June, p. A25.

"To Alleviate Fears, the Saudis Will Now Allow Foreigners to Carry Weapons," by Neil MacFarquhar, NYT, 25 June, p. A13.

"Tunisia's Tangled Web Is Sticking Point for Reform," by Neil MacFarquhar, NYT, 25 June, p. A3.

"Brazil Leader Tailors Pitch To Investors," by Geraldo Samor, WSJ, 25 June, p. A9.