Monday, July 25, 2022

Book Review: Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet by James Mann


The tragic consequences of post-9/11 foreign policy on American institutions and international relations that came in the wake of the attacks continues to loom as an indicator of what led to the current moment. Rise of the Vulcans, published in 2004, tells the origin story of how post- 9/11 foreign policy was shaped and articulated by its framers long before the event that spurred it. The author James Mann was a longtime foreign correspondent for the Los Angeles Times and later a Senior Fellow at the School of Advanced General Studies at Johns Hopkins. Mann's engaging writing style deals eloquently with the biographical details of the key figures and the ideological battles within the foreign policy establishment, making it an essential read dealing with recent history.

The central figures in the book are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, and Condoleezza Rice. Powell and Armitage were both Vietnam veterans and career military men in charge of the State Department during the first Bush administration. Cheney and Rumsfeld were two professional politicians with lifelong ambitions for the presidency who built their reputations during the Nixon-Ford years. Rice and Wolfowitz were both academics, intellectual advocates of American hegemony across the globe. All came together during the 2000 Bush campaign, jokingly and eventually with seriousness referred themselves as Vulcans in honor of the Roman god of fire, in honor of the sense of "toughness" and "durability" it conveyed. Mann summarized their approach to foreign policy as such: 

The vision was that of an unchallengeable America, a United States whose military power was so awesome that it no longer needed to make compromises or accommodations (unless it chose to do so) with any other nation or groups of countries (xii).

Mann also contends that there's far more overlap between cold war and post-cold war history. The "end of history" narrative that took hold after 1989-1991 was wishful thinking above at best. In fact, it was Cold War triumphalism and the rhetoric of victory surrounding it that led to the disasters to come in the 21st Century. Colin Powell was an outlier, his experiences in Vietnam led him to believe military force should only be used when absolutely necessary, and if used, with overwhelming magnitude to ensure a quick conflict (The Powell Doctrine). His experience as Head of the Joint Chiefs during the First Persian Gulf War (and the December 1989 invasion of Panama) vindicated his defense philosophy, but others thought differently. 

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz developed their philosophy during the debates over détente during the 1970s. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger pursued a lessening of tensions with the Soviet Union and China in pursuit of a balance of power to stabilize foreign relations after the Vietnam War. While Kissinger remains a pariah, despised by the political left for his disregard of human rights and by the right who viewed détente as weak, emboldening the USSR. Cheney (Chief of Staff) and Rumsfeld (Defense Secretary) both rose quickly in the Ford administration and worked to undercut Kissinger's realist approach. They pushed for more military spending and aggressive defense postures, both anti-communist and willing to ally with authoritarians when it served their purposes. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Vulcans were against the so called "peace dividend" of lower defense spending/more social services spending and envisioned a newer and sleeker military no power on the planet would ever consider challenging (once again a misreading of history on their part). 

Only the last 50 or 60 pages is devoted to the response to 9/11, which the Vulcans used to reconfigure foreign policy in their own image. As time would tell the new approach would entail pre-emptive wars, small scale interventions in various hotspots, and eventually torture and violating international law and norms. Neoconservatives like Wolfowitz (liberals who were hawkish on defense) viewed the military as instrument to spread democracy even if it met partnering with tyrannical regimes, a dilemma that confronted policymakers during and after the Cold War.

The invasion of Afghanistan in October of 2001 shortly after the 9/11 attacks overthrew the Taliban by December but failed to capture Osama Bin Laden who escaped into the mountains of Pakistan until his demise in 2011. Instead, the U.S. stumbled into a 20-year occupation, maintaining control of the major cities but facing relentless guerilla war in the countryside and eventual retreat in 2021.

Saddam Hussein was viewed as a longtime nemesis by the Vulcans for many reasons. Even though Iraq had nothing to so with 9/11, Bush's war cabinet used the attacks as pretext to overthrow the regime. Powell convinced the President Bush (41) to end the first Persian Gulf War after four days of ground combat, allowing Hussein to remain in power, the reasoning being an American occupation of Iraq would be too costly and disruptive to the region. Cheney and Rumsfeld saw it differently, they were concerned about Iraq obtaining nuclear weapons and in a grand strategic sense believed a democracy taking root in Iraq would spread throughout the region. Of course, access to oil figured greatly into the calculation. Mann makes clear that losing access to Persian Gulf oil reserves terrified the defense establishment and dominated their thinking.  

The character sketches are astute. Rice grew up in segregated Alabama and went to college on a music scholarship and was welcomed into the foreign policy establishment. A Russian specialist, Ms. Rice became Bush's most trusted adviser, often serving as a mediator between warring factions in his administration. Cheney was a ruthless bureaucrat able to neutralize anyone who crossed him, a believer in a strong Presidency and using the military as a blunt instrument (he got five deferments during the Vietnam era draft earning him the "chickenhawk" sobriquet). The book reveals Cheney oversaw "continuity of power" exercises as a Congressional representative during the 1980s, managing nuclear attack drills with the purpose of saving the government's leadership, a fact he never mentioned while he was Vice President (he famously took over the government on 9/11 for at least a few hours).

Rumsfeld also mastered bureaucratic warfare and was mentored by Nixon. As Secretary of Defense for Bush Jr. he was a media darling for a time due to his pithy press conferences (later tarnished over his torture memos). Wolfowitz, an academic well versed on nuclear and energy policy, became the face of pre-emptive war as a legit policy. During the 1970s he was ahead of the curve, writing academic papers arguing the Persian Gulf should have priority over Western Europe because oil was the key to global dominance (the not so hidden agenda of the Bush years.) Armitage and Powell were both ambivalent about preemptive war, they pushed for a diplomatic solution with Iraq but were undercut by Cheney, Powell would later disgrace himself at the United Nations for his mawkish plea to invade Iraq on faulty evidence. 

The post 9/11 foreign policies relied less on alliances and diplomacy and more on a misguided and tragic belief that America was best to go it alone. As the Iraq War turned into a bloody insurgency, hubris became the most used word to describe the Bush administration. Decisions to wield the full force of the surveillance state in the name of preventing terrorist attacks, detain suspected terrorists without regard for basic human rights, and encourage American citizens to keep shopping as an act of patriotism while requiring members of the armed services to serve endless tours overseas did not leave these leaders in good stead. Rise of the Vulcans does an excellent job of telling the why and how, ultimately becoming a story of how entrenched beliefs serve as limitation rather than a strength, especially with individuals in charge of national security.

I next plan to review Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 era Destabilized America and Produced Trump by journalist Spencer Ackerman. Ackerman spent 20 years covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reign of Terror looks at how Bush era policies mutated domestic politics, the "War on Terror" rhetoric would be weaponized by the Trump movement against fellow Americans they came to view as the real enemy. 

Mann, James. Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet. New York: Penguin, 2004.


Saturday, July 2, 2022

On Boomer Gatekeeping


Today I tried to engage with someone (a baby boomer) expressing their annoyance with Progressives criticizing them for using the "ok boomer" line (a phrase I never use here or in RL). When pointing out some reasons on why the anger exists, I was told to "stop generalizing" and that I didn't know what I was talking about and then unfollowed. This was by someone always posting about how "liberal" they supposedly are. I was only trying to discuss the issue (hoarding wealth, electing Reagan, Trump etc . .) Many people I admire and been inspired by are part of the b generation. Many fought the good fight, but why not discuss where things went wrong instead of taking the criticism personally? The generations to follow will face austerity, fascism and living under threats of militarized violence, nuclear proliferation, climate disaster, deadly new viruses, and god knows what else. Not sure there's a point to any of this. My aim was simply to engage and point out why the anger exists and maybe encourage some introspection, but instead got a dismissive attitude. The young have strong reason to be angry and terrified about what's to come.

A few useful articles on the subject:

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/ok-boomer-diving-generation-what-does-it-mean-ncna1077261

https://www.salon.com/2020/08/25/ok-boomer-millennial-economy-jill-filipovic-salon-talk/

Friday, June 10, 2022

Is the Internet like a dying star?


In an article I recently I stumbled upon, ironically through twitter, from a Newsletter by technology writer Charlie Warzel at The Atlantic on the stultifying nature of social media. Warzel interviewed technology theorist LM Sarcasas who believes social media contributes to our collective feeling of being stuck in an endless loop of devastating news:

“There’s a well-ordered way of relating to time—how much attention you give to the past, present, and future,” he said. “I don’t mean to suggest that one way is the good way or the bad way, but it seems as if most of us are disproportionately focused on what has already happened. Not just the events themselves, but the layers of commentary atop of them.”

Not to summarize the entire article, but it describes in a concise way the extent to which social media keeps us chained to the past, caught in a never-ending loop of hopelessness. He compares the social media experience to staring at a star that appears to be alive and bright when in reality it's dying (because of light years). A mass shooting or an international crisis proceeds on twitter like a liturgical set of events: initial shock, outrage, despair, and eventual vertigo/amnesia at the end of the cycle. Repeat the next day.

Furthermore, there’s the dance of everyone commenting on everyone else and not the actual event. Having so many reactions and viewpoints assaulting our brains abstracts everything, possibly akin to living in a hive mind, reminding us hell is other people. It all leads to a stasis and all the negative byproducts: inaction, despair, depression, hopelessness. Morbidity is endemic on twitter.

As a thought experiment, I imagined if something like twitter had existed during The Second World War. All the dark days in the early years of the conflict: the fall of Poland and France, Dunkirk, or Pearl Harbor The famous photograph of Hitler in Paris or of a bombed-out London, would've led to a collective despair that defeating Fascism was impossible. After the destruction of the fleet at Pearl Harbor or the fall of the Philippines, I see think pieces from The Atlantic and twitter threads of doom and gloom of how crossing the English Channel to liberate Europe was impossible.

The main point is that social media traps us in the past like ants in amber, always in reaction mode. To quote Warzel: 

Constantly absorbing and commenting on things that have just happened sounds to me like a recipe for feeling powerless. Online, I frequently feel both stuck in the past but presented with a grim projection of the future. There is very little focus on the present, which is a place where we derive agency. We can act now.

The article presents no options for finding our way out of this conundrum. We've seen how influencers monetize their influence after a tragedy or even a celebrity scandal, they are like the folks who built an amusement park near a dying man trapped in a hole in Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole. A new crop of politicians is more concerned with their tweets stirring disgust than actual policymaking. The influencer impulse is everywhere - digital carnival barkers.

Simply walking away won't work. Could there be counter type of influencing of a more positive variety? Could Utopian ideas catch hold? Messianic figures are dangerous by trade and there are way too many pretenders who imagine themselves as such on twitter. These questions lead to deeper historical questions of what or who serves as a catalyst for futuristic thinking. But technology is still simply a tool, and we can learn how to live with it. It's a crucial question, and while looking to science fiction or visionary biographies are important and have their place, it will come down to more people making decisions towards something better. It will take creativity, historical knowledge, and transcendence. 

A link to the article: https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/galaxy-brain/629ec16551acba002091af11/internet-social-media-reactionary-doom-loop/

Sunday, June 5, 2022

Synching Movies with Albums


The practice of synching rock albums with movies came to popular attention when people started playing Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon with The Wizard of Oz. Fans noted the uncanny connections between the lyrics on the album with what's going in the film. Ever since there's been a small community seeking out the perfect synch - there are a few interesting websites. It's been pointed out by many that putting any piece music against any visual media and they will start to synch. There's something mysterious about it. Recently, I experimented a little on my own. An important approach is to find an album and a film with similar themes. So play any Radiohead or Pink Floyd album against a dystopian Sci-Fi and you'll start to see connections. Ideally, the synch will reveal multiple layers of meaning within the film and the music. Here are some of the ones I tried.




 (12 Monkeys - Radiohead: Ok Computer) - Terry Gilliam's 1995 dystopia dealing with time travel, deadly viruses, secret societies, and madness may be his best film. Bruce Willis stars as a confused and weary man sent back from the future to stop a deadly plague from decimating humanity. Radiohead released Ok Computer in 1997, one of the epochal albums of the decade. Thom Yorke's lyrics are filled apocalyptical imagery and rock/electronica music mimicking how a machine might compose music goes along quite well with the film. Bruce Willis wondering through a desolate landscape as "Exit Music (for a film)" plays captures the wide eyed melancholy of the movie. 





(The Matrix - Radiohead: Kid A) There are many albums to play alongside The Matrix, ranging from heavy metal to prog rock. Radiohead's Kid A perfectly synchs with Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity, the first line of the film "Is Everything in Place" practically introduces the opening track "Everything In It's Right Place." Placing together two important pieces of art at the dawn of the Millennium hits all the right notes as they move between themes of despair and personal liberation. 




(American Graffiti - Paul McCartney and Wings: Red Rose Speedway) A perfect synch. Paul McCartney's slightly retro 1973 album is romantic and nostalgic, going for the energy of the early Beatles records and their epic sounding latter albums. Tracks like "Get on the Right Thing "and "When the Night" are ideal with the neon/nighttime energy of the film. Even Paul's maligned hit single "My Love" works well.



(Three Days of the Condor - The Alan Parson Project: Eye in the Sky) - Maybe the most enlightening synch, adding much to the experience of the album and the film with paranoia and surveillance being at the center of both works. "Sirius" is often used by sports teams to pump up the crowd before a game, here as the opening credits roll it has the feel of encroaching doom. Condor plays less as a post-Watergate paranoid thriller and more as a European art film with a Sci-Fi bent when played with Eye in the Sky, especially in the scenes between Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway. 





(The Shining - The Beatles: The White Album) - My own concoction, an attempt mash up Kubrick with the Beatles, who have a slight historical connection. Kubrick made his home outside of London while the Beatles were in their heyday, they even approached him about directing their adaptation of Lord of the Rings that never went beyond the talking stage. So, the Beatles with Kubrick makes for funky concoction. As the iconic opening credits roll, McCartney sings about about "snow peaked mountains way down south) on "Back in the USSR," while "Dear Prudence" takes on a more menacing tone as Jack enters the Overlook. John's satiric "Glass Onion" plays during the interview scene and on and on. The synch makes both works stranger and more mysterious.

To sum up, synching albums with movies is fun and makes you see both from a new angle. Perhaps our brains are designed to find patterns, the synch approach to media helps us become aware of this. 

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Book Review: What Were We Thinking: A Brief Intellectual History of the Trump Era by Carlos Lozada


What Were We Thinking is a work of synthesis by Washington Post book critic Carlos Lozada - and a valuable one. One of the great ironies of the Trump years were the sheer volume of books (in addition to thousands of think pieces) written about a President who made his functional illiteracy a big selling point with his base. Lozada presents a critical account of much of the writing about this time in American history, leaving one with no doubt its been a transformational era into uncharted territory. Here's a rundown:

1) Understanding the Trump Voter: After election night 2016 mainstream media outlets hit readers hard with searching stories of how Trump won and why. Most of these books were torn on whether it was economic or racial grievance that drove these voters. The answer is somewhere in between - according to the books.  These works range from soul searching memoirs from those who came of age in the heartland, famously J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Elegy and Heartland by Sarah Smarsh, told from opposing ideologies. Vance blames laziness among working class whites and has since become a radical authoritarian subservient to Trump. Smarsh focuses on the damage of tricke down politics in white rural America, a sense of inferiority of being unable to attain financial independence. Academics and journalists took jaunts into Trump country and tried to understand what was going on in works of sociological analysis. Elements of race and economic anxiety play a role. Yet all these books tend to reinforce a stereotype: either a bitter a resentful and ignorant bigot or the folksy helpless victim of bad policy and misleading propaganda. Many of these books also write of rural America as a monolith of whiteness and decline, when in fact they are becoming more diverse and becoming more reliant on immigrant labor. 

2) Resistance Literature: #Resistance became a staple of Twitter after Trump assumed power, unleashing an all hands-on deck mindset to save democracy. Timothy Snyder's slim volume On Tyranny offered grounded advice on how to oppose creeping authoritarianism based on lessons from the 20th Century. Lozada found much of the resistance genre to be insufficient, too focused on deepening the divide and dunking on Trump and his followers instead of rejecting the polarized mindset itself.

3) Conservatives and Trump: The rise of Trump led to a schism within the Conservative Movement and one that's undergone many phases. A flurry of mea culpa memoirs emerged by ex-conservatives despairing over Trump stomping on many conservative principals, leading to their divorce from the GOP. Lozada sees an insincerity at the heart of these volumes in not coming to terms with how their tactics created the climate for a Trump to rise. Then there are Trumpists writing books heaping praise on their leader as a misunderstood president who wants to save America from "the ruling classes. "Trumpist intellectuals" began to build an argument for Trump, based at the radical right Claremont Institute, branding themselves as ultra-nationalists who believe all Americans who voted for Biden should have their citizenship revoked! Lately, as told in a Vanity Fair article, these "rebels" have found allies in the Tech industry and are attempting to market their brand of reactionary-cultural politics into a viable stance that's extremely authoritarian. 

4) Immigration: Perhaps the most painful part of the Trump years were the agonizing debates on immigration, a leader taking a complicated and sensitive issue and pouring gallons of gasoline into an already raging fire. Lozada read books dealing with new approaches to border policy, memoirs written by immigrants and from those who live on the border. A recurring theme are the contradiction America's high demand for immigrant labor and the hostility of Americans towards people willing to the do work. 

5) Assault on Truth: The chaos of the current media landscape is covered in this chapter from historical explanations by academics to memoirs by journalists on the front lines. Questions are raised like. How do we live in a time when everyone lives in their own truth bubble? There's the sheer spectacle of watching government officials lying for their leader despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Orwell's 1984 is often a starting for a long list of academic studies on the decline of an objective truth. 

6) Race in the Trump Era: Lozada looks at the number of books on identity politics, whiteness, and racial identity in modern America. Discourse on racism, anti-racism, and many memoirs on racial identity in 21st Century America are all covered in this chapter. The murder of George Floyd led to a racial reckoning during the summer of 2020 - and a predictable backlash of white resentment. 

7) #MeToo and Gender Politics: Revelations and reflections on the sexual violence perpetuated by men in positions of power occupied much of the discourse during the Trump era. With multiple allegations against Trump himself and the reveal of Harvey Weinstein's many crimes against women, gender dynamics at home and in the workplace underwent substantial reassessment. From Hillary Clinton's memoir What Happened? on facing misogyny as a presidential candidate to confessional memoirs written by women about the abuse they endured in the workplace to suspenseful journalistic accounts such as She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey.

8) White House Chaos, Russia, future of democracy: The last three chapters look at the plethora of accounts from insiders and journalists on the day to day chaos of Trump. Lozada admits these books make for compelling reading, but all fall into a similar trap: They seem too enthused on just reporting on the chaos without much insight into the larger significance. Books on Trump and his Russian connections also became a cottage industry of varying accounts. Books on American history and its meaning were also topped the bestseller lists.  

What We Were Thinking is a useful read on the state of the American psyche during Trump and where it might be going. Lozada shies away from pushing a thesis or agenda, more of a commentary track searching for meaning through a challenging time in history. An extensive bibliography is also included. 

Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Book Review: The Nolan Variations: The Movies, Mysteries, and Marvels of Christopher Nolan by Tom Shone


In one of the first book length studies of Christopher Nolan's films, author Tom Shone presents his subject as something of an enigma. In an age when many are writing obituaries for cinema and lamenting the glut of comic book movies or the rise of streaming - a new Nolan film is considered something of an event. While he built his reputation by revitalizing the Batman franchise, the three films he made (Batman Begins (2005); The Dark Knight (2008); The Dark Knight Rises (2012) exist in their own universe and stand on their own. They're more a part of Nolan's own mythology, rather than Batman lore. So, we have a rarity: an auteur who makes big budget movies during a time it's considered a passé. Nolan revels in being both anachronistic and futuristic simultaneously. To quote the author:

His films are deeply personal fantasies lent urgency and conviction by their maker's need to view fantasy not as some second rate version of reality but its equal, as vital as oxygen. He dreams with his eyes open and asks that we do the same. (15)

Shone conducted a series of interviews with Nolan over the past 20 years, their first meeting during the promotion of Nolan's 2000 film Memento. Despite the generous access Nolan provided Shone on his creative process and views on everything from philosophy and art to his youth spent shuttling between America and the England, Shone finds Nolan to be an enigma, often inscrutable. It would be easy to compare Nolan to Stanley Kubrick since both were directors who managed to construct their own worlds and follow their own artistic preoccupations. But Nolan is far more outgoing with the public than Kubrick despite his mysterious reputation. Highly secretive about his projects, Nolan views cinema as a means to explore a myriad of philosophical, scientific, and historical possibilities. The book is especially useful for insight on Nolan's influences for each film ranging from the paintings of Francis Bacon, the stories of Jorge Luis Borges, and Victorian ideas of time.

Time and its many forms border on obsession in Nolan's filmography, as well as connections between perception and space. Whether it be the backwards narrative in Memento or the disorienting levels of dreamscape in his 2008 film Inception or the bending of spacetime in his 2014 film Interstellar. Packaging these weighty themes into blockbusters goes back to Nolan's fascination cinema history and the filmmakers who pushed the medium forward under the guise of being a mainstream filmmaker whether it be Spielberg or Lean. By this point in his career, Nolanesque has become its own adjective for a specific type of high concept film. 

A chapter is devoted to each film, Shone including details on the production and the genesis of each project. The James Bond franchise, in particular Thunderball and You Only Live Twice, influenced all the Batman movies. Crime films and noir influenced The Dark Knight, while the Charles Dickens classic A Tale of Two Cities played into the The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan avoids explaining his films, sheepishly claiming his first objective is to entertain, and shrugs off the idea his movies are intricate puzzles designed for endless Reddit discussions. 

The book includes photographs and illustrations to along with the text. The author's professional relationship with Nolan provides an inside view of Nolan who keeps living a low key lifestyle with his wife Emma Thomas (and producing partner) and four children (and continues collaborating with his brother Jonathan Nolan on scripts.) There's a lot of fascinating background on his working relationship with the film composer Hans Zimmer. I would highly recommend to any film devotee, even those who are not fans of Nolan who will gain insight from it.