LETTER to ESQUIRE MAG--31 DEC 2006

Dear Esquire:

Enough! Please cancel my subscription to your magazine. I cannot take it anymore. Since I am deployed to Iraq, I receive the latest editions of Esquire several months after publication. I am writing in response to the article "Innocent" by Tom Junod in your July 2006 issue. I will not go into all the specifics of what is so wrong with the details of this piece (question: when did Mr. Junod take a course in Christian theology, comparative religions, or basic journalistic skepticism?). While he is a fine writer, his conclusions are interesting...and unsettling.

What is especially appalling is the statement "He [meaning John Walker Lindh] is a better person than you or I," that appears on page 109. Usually I would laugh at such a misguided and facile conclusion, but every day I look into the faces of the young men and women of our military as they roll outside our gates to face the danger of combat. I could not let Mr. Junod's claim that Lindh is better, more compassionate, and intending more good than our 140,000+ military personnel stationed in Iraq pass uncontested. And why do our forces do it? Because, spectacularly, instead of doing it for money or because they have no other choices due to their socio-economic status, most actually believe they can make a difference.

While I understand the Junod's concern about the legal proceedings of Lindh's case, the broad and sweeping generalizations about Christianity, Mr. Lindh, and how good he is are not only incorrect but disturbing. Mr. Lindh self-admitted that he carried guns and weapons for the Taliban. Last time I checked, these are the same folks who have no problem inflicting horrible collateral damage upon the innocent in the name of their worldview. These are the same folks who, if they believed it would further their cause, would drop a grenade in a baby carriage, walk away, and enjoy their evening meal.

Normally, in the spirit of open debate, I would let such things slide by, but Mr. Junod's words are more of a critique of your own editorial laxity than it is of his journalistic irresponsibility. How can I trust such a magazine that claims to speak for the "man at his best" when it chooses to publish such tripe? Mr. Junod, do us a favor, convert and get it over with, but please spare us the non-critical perspective and wholesale acceptance of what Lindh and his extremist ilk claim. I wish I had more time to write, but I have to get ready to go out on a patrol with some of the Americans eclipsed by Mr. Lindh's down-home, friendly brand of fanaticism.

Take care.

Gratia et Veritas,
CH (CPT) Kevin Wainwright