Ruminatrix
...more recent posts
Wednesday, Mar 19, 2003
Hmm...In retrospect, wasn't it a little peculiar that Bush's Monday-night 48 hour ultimatum speech only demanded the removal of Saddam and his two sons? I mean, wouldn't you have expected a few Special Republican Guard and mukhabarat heads, Tikriti cousins or other senior Ba'ath officials to be on Bush's list?
In the context of psychological warfare operations (aka disinformation) already in progress, it's impossible to tell which of the various defection and desertion rumors flying around may be true. But it's conceivable that resistance by many regular Iraqi Army forces will indeed be minimal. At the very least, some units will likely surrender wholesale sooner than expected. Could there even be a coup in the offing? Just asking... And by the way, what's the US plan for housing all those Iraqi POWs?
I'm not at all a fan of his but check out Thomas Friedman's historical analogy for what will likely start in the next day or so:
Some 35 years ago Israel won a war in Six Days. It saw its victory as self-legitimating. Its neighbors saw it otherwise, and Israel has been trapped in the Seventh Day ever since — never quite able to transform its dramatic victory into a peace that would make Israelis feel more secure.The prospects for a Middle-East Marshall Plan don't look good: handouts and "hands-ups" are sooo last century. Friedman trusts that this government places a high value on building democratic institutions in the region. On what evidence? As for "the wisdom of their predecessors", I haven't heard any in this administration's rhetoric.
More than 50 years ago America won a war against European fascism, which it followed up with a Marshall Plan and nation-building, both a handout and a hand up — in a way that made Americans welcome across the world. Today is a D-Day for our generation. May our leaders have the wisdom of their predecessors from the Greatest Generation.
But the warning about the outcome of the Six-Day War -- a case of a truly defensive pre-emptive war if ever there was -- should be a sober reminder to Washington of the futility of unilateralism over the long haul...
Tuesday, Mar 18, 2003
Just back from a long weekend in New Orleans. Excellent food -- duck gumbo, turtle soup and rabbit stew in particular -- uptown at Jacques-imo (that's "jackomo") Cafe on Oak by the Maple Leaf Bar. Then in the Quarter, Susan Spicer's Bayona on Dauphine Street was pricier, delicious and features an outstanding wine list. Both are well worth a visit. For uplifting your way out of a hangover, the Gospel Brunch at the House of Blues is just the ticket, but foodwise it's just a buffet.
The recently opened D-Day Museum on Magazine is very well laid out and pretty much as free of jingoism as can be. NOLA was the home of the Higgins Boat Works which manufactured many of the landing craft used extensively in the Western European and Pacific theaters alike. So despite its name, the museum covers both. Only the Russian front is undercovered, perhaps but not so surprising for a museum focusing on the experiences of American veterans. Worth seeing.
Ignored the news for three whole days. (Nawlins is a very good place for this). Coming back to NYC to the news of diplomatic failure and imminent war and the "48-hour" ultimatum, my feeling is that we are at the beginning of a new lawless era in history, whatever the rhetoric of enforcement. Two years ago I couldn't have used the words "new era" without thinking of its optimistic connotations. But that is not the case today. More later.
Defense Department advisor Richard Perle says he may sue reporter Seymour Hersh over allegations of a possible conflict of interest. Summary: Perle is on the board of a company which stands to profit from a certain upcoming war (via "investing in companies which deal in technology, goods and services that are of value to national security and defense") and has allegedly been trying to get the Saudis to invest. The middle-man informant is fixer Adnan Khashoggi of BCCI/Iran-Contra fame. It's a murky tale and at some points Hersh -- or the protagonists' obfuscatory deal-maker spiel -- lost me. Maybe Conde Nast legal had something to do with its lack of narrative precision. Does anyone know anything more about Trireme Management Group? Are they interlocked with Carlyle by any chance? And who owns the construction companies who will get the contracts to rebuild after Mesopotamia is MOABed, anyway?
Dratfink has already linked Mailer's scathing Only in America(NYRB). Norman has come around to something like Gore Vidal's view that plutocracy has now superseded democracy in this land. The old man in rare top form... Hitchens' Perils of Partition (Atlantic) is less polemmical but excellent on the very long aftermath of colonialism and in India/Pakistan, Ireland, Cyprus, the Middle East and elsewhere and the metamorphosis of "divide and rule" into post-colonial fratricidal nationalisms.
Went on a job interview today. Out of practice and therefore nervous but once there found the process interesting. Although the stakes are real, there is a game-like quality to the interplay of revelation and concealment. It resembles an elaborate, bizarre form of courting:
Here's a question -- what precisely is the answer sought? Literal or metaphorical? How much to say, when to stop? Ah, that answer intrigued the interviewer, does one elaborate it? Do you have this type of experience? How much? And how would you cope with situation [x]? How did you hear about us? What's the most important thing in doing this type of work? Excuse me, I just have to ask my colleague something... Actually we don't have an opening in your field, a pity, because we would like to be able... We might hire you if you had experience in field [y], but you don't, so...etc. We'll keep this on file in case something comes up... Thank you and good luck...Despondent after, but just for a while... The inevitable second-guessing stage, the onrush of doubts and superstitions(Should I have applied earlier? Should I have worn something else? Rewritten the resume a ninth time? Worn the other shoes? Am I too old/young/fill in the blank?). A little later, and the going-through-it and the coming-out-the-other-side feel almost -- therapeutic. Pick yourself up, this is how you will cope next time, this is where you should steer things that way rather than this. And maybe it wasn't exactly what I wanted anyway. And so on.
The anticipation beforehand was worse.
Monday, Mar 10, 2003
The proposed new US/UK resolution in the UN Security Council this week (to "green-light" an invasion of Iraq) appears to be facing vetoes from Russia, China and France. I say appears since a few friends of mine theorize that we are in the middle of an elaborate good cop/bad cop ploy in which the French or Russians would jump in and mediate with Iraq at the last minute. This they're-all-in-on-it scenario might be more plausible if GWB hadn't already nailed his colors to the mast of regime change, which doesn't provide much incentive for Baghdad to co-operate.
A NYT columnist writes that if the US/UK proposal is vetoed (and so far they don't even have a majority of the fifteen votes): "This means that the UN as now constituted may continue humanitarian activity but need no longer function as the umbrella which strong nations restrain aggression."
What wishful thinking by Mr Safire! Let's eat our cake and have it too! Be in for humanitarian purposes and step out of it when security issues arise. This is nonsense, particularly since some sort of international (i.e. UN) mandate will be needed to provide legitimate authority in Iraq after the Ba'ath Party leaves office. And such mandates may be necessary elsewhere in the world, too -- in North Korea, even.
Ah, but note Safire's weasely qualifier "strong" before nations! First it suggests that weaker nations have no role to play in restraining aggression. And does he really think Russia and China are weak nations?
Prediction: Going in without a clear UN mandate will provoke exactly the sort of resolution condemning aggression that Mr Safire wishes to see passed, except that such a vote would be directed at the "coalition of the willing" itself.
...At which point Washington will be quick to blame the French Gremans, Russians and Chinese for destroying the UN and trashing international law.
For the first time last night, I heard a someone (albeit a "character" wearing a seal-skin baseball cap -- it's okay because it was made by a Greenland Inuit) assert that he wouldn't let French or German wine pass his lips. Did we have something Spanish, Italian or Australian, perhaps? Of course, de gustibus etc...But how does a government's foreign policy position reflect a winemaker's opinion, if s/he even has one? And isn't punishing an entrepreneur for the policy positions of their government, well, at least unRepublican if not somewhat unAmerican? Maybe I should reconsider my sommelier career plan (one of a few I'm wrestling with right now) if I can only sell overoaked juice.
Not much to add about the dispiriting UN deadlock over Iraq except that whatever the merits of the various parties' arguments -- war-now vs no-war-ever vs war-maybe-but-not-just-yet -- US diplomacy (an oxymoron already?) has been incredibly clumsy throughout. This goes for the handling of allies (UK in particular), just as much as of awkward opponents (Russia, China, France, Germany) and neutrals (Mexico, and so on). Letting your military schedule override all international discussions is more than short-sighted: It's like holding a conversation with your fingers jammed in your ears and your eyes shut tight -- it lacks finesse (sorry, I can' t think of an anglo-saxon synonym right now).
The President's subtle-as-a-flying-mallet introduction of regime change as an explicit war aim last week is a classic example: Washington must know this puts Blair on the spot. Blair has rested his case entirely on Iraqi disarmament. This is because waging a war for the purpose of regime change is not permitted by the UN Charter -- in case that matters.
So yeah, the Administration is transparently just going through the motions at the UN before its "inevitable" invasion and the race begins to sanitize Iraqi WMD files and lock up the evil scientists (the ones who don't want to come to work for us) and so on.
Prediction: there will likely be a price to pay later for this myopic haste, and for behavior that other nations could reasonably construe as contemptuous indifference to their concerns. Not right away, perhaps... But at some point, even if the war of '03 is a famous victory, the US might actually need the UN for some purposes -- if only to relocate Iraqi refugees, rehouse Baghdadis, repair the Shia shrines in Najaf and Karbala, or share some other expenses, material and symbolic. No? Or will US taxpayers, wallowing again in debt, joyfully assume the entire burden of the Protectorate? As Theo says: "Yeah right, dad."
Let's not even consider today how a wider regional peace in the Middle East could be facilitated by a UN role. But already one reads, for example, that the US would like to see multilateral, not one-to-one talks with N Korea. What's the incentive for other powers (China, anyone?) to join such talks, when the administration simultaneously leaks Air Force contigency plans to bomb the North's reactor? Even if it's what they want to convey, this "We're crazy, y'all better get out of the way" rhetoric is not a viable long-term global strategy. And it is time to be thinking about long-term strategies, not just mobilization schedules.
Saw the Wooster Group's Brace Up the other night at St Anne's Workshop in Brooklyn w Joshua. It's lively, fast-paced and playful enough (the customary WG use of video, narration, telescoping of scenes) to keep one off-balance without obscurantism. The ur-text is Three Sisters, filtered thru' the medium of tv talkshows. It's odd how one still "reads" different actors' performances (some more caricaturish, some more introspective), despite all the alienation-effect stuff like having a sixty-something actress (Beatrice Roth) play the youngest sister Irina. Good stuff. Thru March 19th.
Afterwards went to (spurious Flash alert) Chez Es-Saada on First Street. The new executive chef is Paul Liebrandt, (ex- Atlas and Papillon). In brief: tasty anchovy-and-merguez app, but overpriced quail & lamb couscous ($25) and dry duck tagine, unadventurous wine list, spotty service -- disappointing overall from the dining POV tho' the basement was pretty full of lounging drinkers. What's the minimum time someone has to spend onsite to qualify as executive chef?
Thanks to Jim for recommending irfanview, a handy freeware image-editing and optimization utility for us darkside drones. Designed by Irfan Skiljan --- a Bosnian student at Vienna Tech -- the program lets you edit most popular image, sound and video formats. So far I'm just dabbling, but the look of this page may change as a result.
For the third time I have hit the Back key on my browser (IE) while in the middle of writing in the post window and whoosh, all gone -- an hour's effort evaporated into the ether! Next time I had better use Notepad rather than typing directly in the post window. Anyway I'm not going to rewrite it from scratch, dammit, not this time.
In brief: went to the Met today. The Leonardo drawings (thru March 30th) are interesting, but limited in scope. And it's so crowded it's hard to get close enough to really see the drawings. Favorite title: "Sketch of a bear drawn over (faintly visible) outline of a pregnant woman" or something like that. I can see why Bill Gates bought the Codex Leicester (with all its tiny handwriting in mirror-script and marginal doodles of hydrodynamic gizmos) but it doesn't really move me or makes me see the world in a a different way.
The Manet/Velazquez show (thru June 8th?) on the other hand, is really an eye-opener -- how realism in 17th century Spain profoundly influenced 19th century French (and some American) painters, notably Manet. The linking artist is Goya and there are wonderful things here, including examples from Tauromaquia, Desastros de la Guerra (how topical!) and the Caprichos, forerunner of Moreau and Dore and of surrealists too.
Does ambient bellicosity makes one crave art? Hmm, let's see, there's also the Picasso-Matisse show in Queens and the Matthew Barney's Cremaster at the Guggenheim...