I subscribed to WM in 1982, after grad school. I devoured each issue! Mr. Peters influenced my thinking and perspective, both through his own writing, and especially through the writings of those he gathered into the magazine. You, Mr. Fallows, were first introduced to me through Washingtom Monthly. You have been a steady and reliable "think-prompter" since that time. I am grateful for Mr. Peters' ability to encourage good and great writers to say what they thought needed to be said.
Another admirable person I wish I had met in '75 when I was an intern in D.C.
Two serious questions (perhaps for another time, for sure):
1) Was CP exceptional during his heyday or did he have peers re his contributions?
2) Who is the CP of digital journalism today? Does anyone remind you of him?
Thank you for this moving tribute... Charlie Peters clearly demonstrates the possibilities and richness of a life well-lived in the real world with an enduring legacy to match. My condolences to his family both literally and as extended to you and your colleagues who benefited for having known him.
Charlie was one-of-a-kind in his particular outlook, and his combination of political, legal, and journalistic experience. But he was one of a number of influential editors who changed how people thought, reported, and wrote. In one of his tributes, my friend Gregg Easterbrook brings up the apt comparison of Bill Whitworth, an influential editor at The New Yorker and then for 20 years a fabulous leader at the Atlantic.
I know that you have suffered a couple of major, personal losses in the past week. I hope there's some small consolation that they lived long, meaningful, and wonderful lives.
When I resigned from the Foreign Service in 1969, a member of TWM board suggested that I write an ‘insider’ account of the FS, which, at that time, I was not ready to do.
This was my introduction to TWM and to Charlie.His principles and broad perspective resulted in a must read journal on government, especially in Washington. His book What Washington is Really Like in 1980 is as valid today as it was 43 years ago, although the debilitating process is accelerated these days.
His Tilting With Windmills I considered a must read through 2014.
Equally important was how Charlie mentored some of the most creative and boots-on-the-ground writers of two generations.
Jim, this was how I became a devotee of your marvelous insights. I first relished your articles on our military’s ‘misthinks.’ Your article on the absurdities of air craft carriers who, as part of three fleets, had one carrier fleet on station, another home being refitted, and a third for training, highlighted that this only provided about two dozen attack bombers, while the rest were to defend the carrier. Your book on the military I have long cherished.
You and your TWM colleagues continue to maintain Charlie’s principles and sharp analysis of government absurdities today.
I salute Charlie, Charlie’s mentees, and, especially, you.
Keith, thank you so much. You have been there since the early days to see the kind of perspective Charlie was trying to offer, and that he thought journalism of that era (and this) paid too little attention to. And, yes, his Tilting at Windmills was blogging 'avant la lettre'—running commentary from one sensibility but about a range of topics.
And, I am personally very grateful for your attention, support, and kind words.
Jim I believe the TWM board member was Jim Thomson. He was only one of two members of government who, in spring 1965, knew that I had refused our Saigon ambassador’s specific ‘invitation’ to join him.
The other was the Ex Sec of the White House Vietnam Committee who intercepted the ambassador’s message and, after checking with me, took my name off the list. He was a close friend from my Yale American Students for International Understanding days.
Charlie would have appreciated this insight into how government actually worked.
Oh, yes, I am so glad to know that it was Jim Thomson. Charlie *tremendously* admired the piece he wrote for the Atlantic on 'How Could Vietnam Happen?' That piece came out a year or so before The Washington Monthly was founded, by Charlie used it as a model of how to report on these complex issues. I came to know Jim Thomson later through in his years at the Nieman foundation at Harvard. So many talented people finding ways to tell the truth.
Jim Recollecting Jim Thomson triggered thoughts about Jim’s (and my) evolution in the 1960s.
After publishing NASSER’S NEW EGYPT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS (1960), I joined the State Department in COMINT (Communications Intelligence) awaiting the Foreign Service Exam process.
Thomson has just gotten his PhD in his China speciality. He had been close to Chester Bowles, who was rewarded with an undersecretary spot at State. Bowles, former ambassador to India, was considered a ‘softie’ and was never part of the Kennedy inner circle.
JFK made much of his Third World affinity. Tunisia’s Habib Bourguiba and Ghana’s Nkrumah were early White House visitors.
In July, 1961, a Tunisian scuffle with France over the port of Bizerte soon escalated. I was viewing this through COMINT and my daily briefing of the heads of State’s North African department. DeGaulle launched a massive attack on Bizerte resulting in many casualties—including perhaps a thousand civilians. This was a big Third World/Europe test for JFK.
He chose Europe and DeGaulle’s semi-commitment to NATO. I suspect that Bowles (for whom Jim was a principal aide) was shuffled out of this decision.
In September, 1961 there was a major Nonaligned Conference in Belgrade, with India a principal. During this the Soviets exploded a large dirty bomb. The nonaligned folks said nothing. JFK went ballistic and basically said ‘fuck them all.’ [I followed this in real time and, some years later, got confirmation during a dinner with George Kennan, who was then our ambassador in Belgrade.]
I suspect that this further distanced Bowles from the Kennedy group.
As a Foreign Service Officer I went to Congo in 1962 (I had been working on Congo since 1960). After JFK’s death, Bowles left State (returned to India as ambassador) and Jim went to the National Security Council as its China expert.
Soon after my return from Congo in 1964 to be Congo expert in African INR (Intelligence and Research), Jim contributed to a spring 1964 preliminary draft of what became the Tolkien Gulf resolution in August 1964. At that time Jim and I bonded as part of a Young Turks group that spoke candidly with one another,
As he was being sucked into Vietnam, I became point man on Congo, especially the 3,300 foreign hostages under rebel death threat.
Jim and regularly played squash and had lunch. Jim and Diana came to my house for dinner. Increasingly we spoke about Vietnam. [In 1962, one of my Foreign Service class colleagues (Peter Tarnoff) went to Vietnam, while I went to Congo. Somehow I got involved with a friend of mine, a senior editor of Egypt’s top paper, who sought to visit Vietnam ‘under USIS auspices.’ No problem. He wanted some extra pocket money, which I provided. Actually he spent all his money in Hong Kong and never got to Vietnam—-still, I wasn’t concerned about Vietnam in 1962.]
Jim and I read Bernard Fall and Robert Shaplen and increasingly realized that there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Jim was more familiar than I with Ho’s nationalist background. I had learned in Egypt the difference between nationalism and ‘communism.’
I was following the LBJ Vietnam escalation through sensitive State and CIA sources. Jim, at NSC, certainly had access to more timely intelligence. I was shocked when three Pentagon colonels met with me to try to convince me to use ‘Vietnam methods’ in coping with the Congo rebellion. These included creating ‘strategic villages,’ in which Congolese farmers would be forced out of their farms and villages and then the abandoned territory would be considered ‘enemy’ and subject to bombing and other attacks.
Jim and I discussed this and much more about Vietnam. I told him why I had rejected our Saigon ambassador’s ‘invitation to join him in spring, 1965.
As LBJ massively escalated our involvement in Vietnam, Jim and I were increasingly certain that this would result in failure. [Under Secretary George Ball had drafted, on October 27, 1964, a super secret 75-page brief in which he analyzed three alternatives in Vietnam, concluding that negotiating a withdrawal was the ‘least worst alternative.’ Years later this was published in The Atlantic.]
In Washington I last saw Jim just before I went into Spanish language training prior to going to Chile as Political Officer. About the same time, I heard that Jim had resigned from the NSC because of his opposition to LBJ’s ‘more and more’ troops Vietnam policy.
In retrospect, this reflects how Jim’s and my views on Vietnam sharply changed as, especially, LBJ transformed an ill-advised conflict into a full scale war against ‘nationalist’ Ho, while Saigon government was a corrupt, increasingly military turn style.
In Chile I did not see Jim’s 1968 The Atlantic article. I was again ‘invited by our Saigon ambassador to join him in 1967 and forcefully refused. I reconnected with Jim in Boston after my resignation from the Foreign Service in 1969 [exit interview conducted personally by Acting Secretary ElliotRichardson.] I went briefly on the staff of The Fletcher School before joining the Lindsay administration in NY.
As I learned from RASHOMON, eye witness accounts can differ vastly, and often no one can be sure which is accurate. So treat gingerly my recollections from about 60 years ago.
One of Charlie Peters's great legacies to us all is the incredible group of alums of The Washington Monthly -- an honor role of American political journalists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Thank you. Nick Confessore pointed out in a tribute-thread that Charlie had influenced so many people, over so many decades, that there were 2nd and 3rd generation cases of TWM alumni being mentors for the next rising crew.
I subscribed to WM in 1982, after grad school. I devoured each issue! Mr. Peters influenced my thinking and perspective, both through his own writing, and especially through the writings of those he gathered into the magazine. You, Mr. Fallows, were first introduced to me through Washingtom Monthly. You have been a steady and reliable "think-prompter" since that time. I am grateful for Mr. Peters' ability to encourage good and great writers to say what they thought needed to be said.
Thank you. The ripple effects of Charlie's example and influence continue to spread.
Another admirable person I wish I had met in '75 when I was an intern in D.C.
Two serious questions (perhaps for another time, for sure):
1) Was CP exceptional during his heyday or did he have peers re his contributions?
2) Who is the CP of digital journalism today? Does anyone remind you of him?
Thank you for this moving tribute... Charlie Peters clearly demonstrates the possibilities and richness of a life well-lived in the real world with an enduring legacy to match. My condolences to his family both literally and as extended to you and your colleagues who benefited for having known him.
Thanks. And for these Qs:
Charlie was one-of-a-kind in his particular outlook, and his combination of political, legal, and journalistic experience. But he was one of a number of influential editors who changed how people thought, reported, and wrote. In one of his tributes, my friend Gregg Easterbrook brings up the apt comparison of Bill Whitworth, an influential editor at The New Yorker and then for 20 years a fabulous leader at the Atlantic.
On the second: I just don't know.
Thanks for your kind thoughts.
I know that you have suffered a couple of major, personal losses in the past week. I hope there's some small consolation that they lived long, meaningful, and wonderful lives.
Thank you very much; I appreciate it. I will write soon about Jerry Doolittle, a colleague in the speechwriting years, who has also recently departed.
I am sorry about this loss as well.
Jim
When I resigned from the Foreign Service in 1969, a member of TWM board suggested that I write an ‘insider’ account of the FS, which, at that time, I was not ready to do.
This was my introduction to TWM and to Charlie.His principles and broad perspective resulted in a must read journal on government, especially in Washington. His book What Washington is Really Like in 1980 is as valid today as it was 43 years ago, although the debilitating process is accelerated these days.
His Tilting With Windmills I considered a must read through 2014.
Equally important was how Charlie mentored some of the most creative and boots-on-the-ground writers of two generations.
Jim, this was how I became a devotee of your marvelous insights. I first relished your articles on our military’s ‘misthinks.’ Your article on the absurdities of air craft carriers who, as part of three fleets, had one carrier fleet on station, another home being refitted, and a third for training, highlighted that this only provided about two dozen attack bombers, while the rest were to defend the carrier. Your book on the military I have long cherished.
You and your TWM colleagues continue to maintain Charlie’s principles and sharp analysis of government absurdities today.
I salute Charlie, Charlie’s mentees, and, especially, you.
Keith, thank you so much. You have been there since the early days to see the kind of perspective Charlie was trying to offer, and that he thought journalism of that era (and this) paid too little attention to. And, yes, his Tilting at Windmills was blogging 'avant la lettre'—running commentary from one sensibility but about a range of topics.
And, I am personally very grateful for your attention, support, and kind words.
Thank you.
Jim I believe the TWM board member was Jim Thomson. He was only one of two members of government who, in spring 1965, knew that I had refused our Saigon ambassador’s specific ‘invitation’ to join him.
The other was the Ex Sec of the White House Vietnam Committee who intercepted the ambassador’s message and, after checking with me, took my name off the list. He was a close friend from my Yale American Students for International Understanding days.
Charlie would have appreciated this insight into how government actually worked.
Oh, yes, I am so glad to know that it was Jim Thomson. Charlie *tremendously* admired the piece he wrote for the Atlantic on 'How Could Vietnam Happen?' That piece came out a year or so before The Washington Monthly was founded, by Charlie used it as a model of how to report on these complex issues. I came to know Jim Thomson later through in his years at the Nieman foundation at Harvard. So many talented people finding ways to tell the truth.
Jim Recollecting Jim Thomson triggered thoughts about Jim’s (and my) evolution in the 1960s.
After publishing NASSER’S NEW EGYPT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS (1960), I joined the State Department in COMINT (Communications Intelligence) awaiting the Foreign Service Exam process.
Thomson has just gotten his PhD in his China speciality. He had been close to Chester Bowles, who was rewarded with an undersecretary spot at State. Bowles, former ambassador to India, was considered a ‘softie’ and was never part of the Kennedy inner circle.
JFK made much of his Third World affinity. Tunisia’s Habib Bourguiba and Ghana’s Nkrumah were early White House visitors.
In July, 1961, a Tunisian scuffle with France over the port of Bizerte soon escalated. I was viewing this through COMINT and my daily briefing of the heads of State’s North African department. DeGaulle launched a massive attack on Bizerte resulting in many casualties—including perhaps a thousand civilians. This was a big Third World/Europe test for JFK.
He chose Europe and DeGaulle’s semi-commitment to NATO. I suspect that Bowles (for whom Jim was a principal aide) was shuffled out of this decision.
In September, 1961 there was a major Nonaligned Conference in Belgrade, with India a principal. During this the Soviets exploded a large dirty bomb. The nonaligned folks said nothing. JFK went ballistic and basically said ‘fuck them all.’ [I followed this in real time and, some years later, got confirmation during a dinner with George Kennan, who was then our ambassador in Belgrade.]
I suspect that this further distanced Bowles from the Kennedy group.
As a Foreign Service Officer I went to Congo in 1962 (I had been working on Congo since 1960). After JFK’s death, Bowles left State (returned to India as ambassador) and Jim went to the National Security Council as its China expert.
Soon after my return from Congo in 1964 to be Congo expert in African INR (Intelligence and Research), Jim contributed to a spring 1964 preliminary draft of what became the Tolkien Gulf resolution in August 1964. At that time Jim and I bonded as part of a Young Turks group that spoke candidly with one another,
As he was being sucked into Vietnam, I became point man on Congo, especially the 3,300 foreign hostages under rebel death threat.
Jim and regularly played squash and had lunch. Jim and Diana came to my house for dinner. Increasingly we spoke about Vietnam. [In 1962, one of my Foreign Service class colleagues (Peter Tarnoff) went to Vietnam, while I went to Congo. Somehow I got involved with a friend of mine, a senior editor of Egypt’s top paper, who sought to visit Vietnam ‘under USIS auspices.’ No problem. He wanted some extra pocket money, which I provided. Actually he spent all his money in Hong Kong and never got to Vietnam—-still, I wasn’t concerned about Vietnam in 1962.]
Jim and I read Bernard Fall and Robert Shaplen and increasingly realized that there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Jim was more familiar than I with Ho’s nationalist background. I had learned in Egypt the difference between nationalism and ‘communism.’
I was following the LBJ Vietnam escalation through sensitive State and CIA sources. Jim, at NSC, certainly had access to more timely intelligence. I was shocked when three Pentagon colonels met with me to try to convince me to use ‘Vietnam methods’ in coping with the Congo rebellion. These included creating ‘strategic villages,’ in which Congolese farmers would be forced out of their farms and villages and then the abandoned territory would be considered ‘enemy’ and subject to bombing and other attacks.
Jim and I discussed this and much more about Vietnam. I told him why I had rejected our Saigon ambassador’s ‘invitation to join him in spring, 1965.
As LBJ massively escalated our involvement in Vietnam, Jim and I were increasingly certain that this would result in failure. [Under Secretary George Ball had drafted, on October 27, 1964, a super secret 75-page brief in which he analyzed three alternatives in Vietnam, concluding that negotiating a withdrawal was the ‘least worst alternative.’ Years later this was published in The Atlantic.]
In Washington I last saw Jim just before I went into Spanish language training prior to going to Chile as Political Officer. About the same time, I heard that Jim had resigned from the NSC because of his opposition to LBJ’s ‘more and more’ troops Vietnam policy.
In retrospect, this reflects how Jim’s and my views on Vietnam sharply changed as, especially, LBJ transformed an ill-advised conflict into a full scale war against ‘nationalist’ Ho, while Saigon government was a corrupt, increasingly military turn style.
In Chile I did not see Jim’s 1968 The Atlantic article. I was again ‘invited by our Saigon ambassador to join him in 1967 and forcefully refused. I reconnected with Jim in Boston after my resignation from the Foreign Service in 1969 [exit interview conducted personally by Acting Secretary ElliotRichardson.] I went briefly on the staff of The Fletcher School before joining the Lindsay administration in NY.
As I learned from RASHOMON, eye witness accounts can differ vastly, and often no one can be sure which is accurate. So treat gingerly my recollections from about 60 years ago.
One of Charlie Peters's great legacies to us all is the incredible group of alums of The Washington Monthly -- an honor role of American political journalists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Thank you. Nick Confessore pointed out in a tribute-thread that Charlie had influenced so many people, over so many decades, that there were 2nd and 3rd generation cases of TWM alumni being mentors for the next rising crew.
What a great mentor he has been for you and other top-class journalists
Thank you Tom!