John,
Thank you – I think I was indeed squirming in my seat a bit, but I held onto the reins. Brian, the interviewer, kept making facial motions to me off-camera to cut off Carhart and get the discussion back to the topic. Did you see in the middle of the interview when Carhart held up his book and said “I’m just here to promote my book”? That was when I about fell off my own chair…

J.D.

John

Perhaps the chief contra-example is CNN’s “Valley of Death” fiasco back in 1998, where an investigative reporter with zero military experience waded fearlessly into a complex military issue making no effort whatsoever to inform herself about some of the “basics” about the Vietnam War, the units and the various military subcultures involved, the overwhelming evidence that contradicted her thesis, etc., and capped it off by deliberately withholding her piece from review by CNN’s senior military adviser, a retired USAF general who would have gladly set her straight had she only asked. When you approach history with something to prove, you’re setting yourself up for failure.

I’ve had a similar discussion with the brother of a friend who graduated West Point and has occasionally taught there since. As he put it, “I know more than the “non-professionals” do about Civil War combat – including how to call in air support”. Carhart’s assertion reveals only one thing – massive insecurity. By the way, your end of this debacle was nicely handled.

An another skill that Carhart is painfully lacking, obviously, is diplomacy. You’d think he would have picked that up along the way with all his experience. Saying what he said to me, about me and others, was the height of tactlessness and rudeness, regardless of his own stupid opinions.

J.D.

Besides being able to write, the historian needs research skills, passion, and impartiality. Those traits are found in many professions.