“Bridging the Gap” in “The Sound and the Fury,” Esquire, September 2004, p. 49.
Here’s what the editor writes in introducing the three letters printed in the September “Style Issue”:
Months after military strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett offered foreign-policy advice to George W. Bush (“Mr. President, Here’s How to Make Sense of Our Iraq Strategy,” June), the letter keep coming in.
Here are the three short letters in full:
The “Gap/Core” theory is a sick delineation of the globe that makes no exception to the might-makes-right rule. I’m all too afraid that Bush may subscribe to this theory (once it’s explained with pretty pictures and a patient advisor) and go on a rampage to boost his re-election chances under the guise of bringing the world into the “Core.” I think I may move to Canada.
DAVID KASDAN
Las Vegas, Nev.
Perhaps Barnett should have started with an explanation of why increased globalization is a positive goal. This might have prevented his views from being rejected up front by readers who don’t view increased multinational corporate power as being a goal worthy of even nonmilitary effort.
STEVE PERKINS
Duluth, Ga.
Barnett was able to capture the way many people in support of the war feel but are not eloquent or educated enough to articulate. As a member of the military, I find it refreshing to see something other than Bush-bashing stories. While I’m not necessarily in favor of everything the president does, he certainly does not deserve the constant attacks he seems to receive from the media. You have earned my respect and praise for breaking the one-sided mold that so much of the media falls into.
CDT. ADAM LYNCH
West Point, N.Y.
COMMENTARY: In order:
· Kasdan’s whine is just what you want in a negative letter: some name-calling, an insult of my moral character, and then the fear voiced that this vision may well represent the way the government is actually moving. In short, he doesn’t lay a glove on me, and simply frets over my apparent influence. Boo hoo. He should think about moving into the Gap if he’s so high and mighty in his moral outlook. Then again, he might have to subscribe to the might-makes-right amorality of my vision then . . .
· Perkins’ letter is okay, but orthogonal in an unhelpful (but ain’t I smart) sort of way. Sure, I could have written an entire treatise on why globalization is good as well, but it would have been a 10,000-word article at that point. Can I be accused on not doing enough on that score in the book as well? Yes, I can. There I have no excuse at 150,000 words, except that I decided that I wasn’t an expert on the economic side of globalization, but the military side, so I decided to write the book that only I could write, and not simply regurgitate the better analysis of others. Still, viewing globalization as merely the extension of the corporate reach of big companies is awfully naïve. Perkins should probably go see a Michael Moore movie if he wants that sort of pabulum spoon-fed.
· Lynch’s letter is fine, but awfully predictable. I like the compliment that starts it off. But the real reason why Esquire published that one had nothing to do with the article’s content, but rather because they wanted to give themselves a pat on the back for being so “balanced,” which is fair enough because they truly are in covering Bush.
| Permalink |
