Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Hi Tom,

I'm not surprised at all.

Johnson's M.O. is that he basically starts with a conclusion and then assembles whatever evidence might support his point while ignoring that which does not, including the obvious logical implications of his own examples that might tend to contradict his general point. This "everything but the kitchen sink" approach often leads to rambling prose.

If anyone wishes to see examples of Johnson argumentation, HNN has a fair number of his articles in their archives, some taken from his "trilogy".

Transcript?

The world of geopolitical events is a gray one. Unfortunately, those who offer thought leadership tend to see things as black or white. The right answers (there is usually more than one right answer) tends to lie in that gray middle somewhere. The role of politicians and diplomats is to navigate the gray and make public policy of it.

(IMHO) Countries follow nature’s pattern of natural selection. Our (America’s) success is also our vulnerability. Are we evolving into an Eagle that soars or a Dodo that has lost its ability to fly. I am not ready to judge as to whether or not we (as a country) have the ability to adapt and survive. There is no guarantee that our moral imperatives will contribute to our ability to survive competing forms of organization (including stateless actors and virtual citizenship based upon some idea or ideology that transcends traditional borders) for dominance on this planet. I do not think that our budding young Republic is immune from failure; however, I also believe that its failure is not inevitable. We must continue to evolve or adapt.

Simply put, you and Dr. Chalmers are both right… and you are both wrong. What America needs now is the politician who can navigate the gray harmonizing multiple points of view into workable public policy that secures our citizens safety and security. I don’t see anyone up to the task at the moment.

Thank you for offering a stimulating blog where we may discuss these issues… and please hurry up with the next book (in your Trilogy).

Talking with someone like Chalmers Johnson is like wrestling a pig--you get dirty, but the pig enjoys it!

Stop the PSYOPS Al. I'm working on it!

I have the two articles in process now. Then I have my taxes and a job for Esquire I'm setting up right now that involves foreign travel. Then I look in April to put the proposal together (just spoke about it with Mark yesterday), and then I'm looking to write July-Aug and give Warren Sept and Oct to edit so we turn in on Halloween, like last time, for a hopefully late spring pub date.

The struggle, in a nutshell: how much to extend BFA and how much to make this the avowed primer on my definition of strategic thinking and the career of a grand strategist? Answer we keep coming up with: format around the latter and use the former as examples. Thus I seek out column ideas along the subject line of grand strategy, even as I know that's a tough subject to plumb week after week.

I am very unsure about the feasibility of this book, which is why I am confident to try it. Sure things usually suck. When I'm scared and feel like I'm going out on a limb, I'm usually exactly where I want to be in terms of output.

Just me being cranky, I guess. It's a lot to gear up for a book in terms of ego.

"There are only two kinds of plan: plans that might work and plans that won't work. You have to take a plan that might work and make it work." Former NATO Supreme Commander Wes Clark.

There are, in fact, two candidates very much up to these challenges; fortunately, they are both Democrats.

Tom,

I thought you were superb.

Johnson reminds me a lot of Chomsky. He's got the same matter-of-fact cadence and tone with his voice. He's great at citing grievances while providing evidence like "this is widely published."

Blah.

You can't argue with that. You can only present a cogent position and articulate it as well as possible, which is what you did.

All the best.