Tom Barnett frequently publishes his “reviews of reviews” on his blog where he comments on media coverage of his book The Pentagon’s New Map. Younghusband reviewed PNM alongside G. Friedman’s America’s Secret War last month and Barnett gave his review of the review here and here.
YH liked the book and, not surprisingly, Barnett liked that (with a few sidenotes):
COMMENTARY: Mr. Coming Anarchy gives me the usual slap-down of those who really like the book but want to offer criticism: too repetitive, too self-congratulatory (America rules!) and too long. Fine. He scores his point. Bigger point is that he gets it for what it really attempts to be: a serious attempt at grand strategy that doesn’t focus on the tactics of today and isn’t just a long bitch-session about what the author can’t stand about the Bush administration’s security and diplomatic policies. He also sees the book as accessible, which is key, and views me as new school (definitely not another Kissinger or Brzezinski). This is all good, so I take the quibbling in stride. Mr. Coming Anarchy, despite the bias of his nom-de-scare, knows his rear-end from his elbow in terms of strategic analysis, and that, my friends, is rare in this world.
Admirable. We’re honored he stops by now and then.
Just one thing Mr. Barnett — the content on Cominganarchy.com is provided by two contributors with different educations, experiences, and nationalities, currently living on opposite sides of the globe. There is no “Mr. Coming Anarchy” (if anyone, that would be the dear Mr. Robert D. Kaplan — not your favorite journalist, I know). And as for us, the proper form of address is Sir Younghusband and Lord Curzon.
And we look forward to the next book.
I believe the proper form of address for a knight is Sir Francis (Edward) Younghusband
http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/FORMSOFADDRESS/SpkWritFrmsAddr.html
Might Sir Younghusband soon be reviewing your review of the review of the review, Lord Curzon?
I have my doubts about both YH’s knighthood and Curzon’s Lordship (sorry guys). It’s about as genuine as the “Esq.” I had put at the end of my name on my High School Diploma. (not a lie) :)
Re: Esq titles
Back in 19th century England, Esq just meant you had a Bachelor’s degree. I have no idea why the US took it to mean attorney at law, but overseas I’ve found that the “Esq.” title for US lawyers is always a point of laughter.
I think it is pretty cool. It’s obvious he would like my review: how are you gonna argue with someone who agrees with you? And admittedly my criticisms were mostly cosmetic. I am more amazed that he took the time to write about a review by some kook with an obscure blog… Coming Anarchy kicks elbow once again!
LOL
Sir Younghusband…
In the sentence “I am more amazed that he took the time to write about a review by some kook with an obscure blog.”
Are you refering to Barnett’s review of the CA’s review, or Lord Curzon’s review of Barnett’s review?
Either way: hilarious.
Your review was OK, but I’d have liked to see some more quotes from the review of the review.
That IS the review of the review, in its entirety! You won’t find another word!
UPDATE: I don’t know why I just found this now, but Dan at TDAXP reviews my review of the review of the review!