The Foust-Broadwell feud: He responds

By Joshua Foust

Best Defense guest respondent

I appreciate MAJ
Erwin's service to our country. But I would also appreciate his portraying
my comments accurately. I never claimed to "review" Paula's book (and
in fact say very specifically that I did not). While he can proclaim me
shameless, I find a certain shamelessness in ignoring 1500 words about Paula
Broadwell's many problems with telling the truth, presenting that truth
accurately and consistently over time, or portraying her critics fairly.

Rather than focusing on a throwaway line at the end of a
long analysis of a small anecdote in Paula's book, MAJ Erwin chose instead to
take exception at my donating money to the Wounded Warriors Project with the
wrong rhetoric attached to it. That's certainly his right, and he has every
right to assume my motives to feel outrage. 

But the decision to focus on such a small point -- literally
my decision to donate to an organization supporting wounded veterans so I
wouldn't deny them a small royalty check by not buying Paula's book -- while
ignoring the much bigger points about Paula's issues with telling the truth is
worrisome. Either Paula told a false version of what happened at Tarok Kolache
on this blog last year, or she is telling a false version of what happened in
her book. The two do not match, and it would serve EVERYONE interested in
character and leadership, like Major Erwin, to contemplate that as well.

The real issue here isn't whether I donated to the Wounded
Warrior Project with the right motives, but whether Paula Broadwell is telling
an incomplete version of the truth to tell the story she wanted for her
hagiography of General Petraeus. No matter what people like Major Erwin try to
deflect attention from that point, it doesn't change the real issue here.