I’m been skeptical about those who are quick to attack the way a city is changing. I remember first visiting Prague in the mid-90s and then moving there a few years later and hearing from the beginning “oh, you should have been here X number of years ago, it used to be so much better”. When we are fond of a place we automatically want it to stay exactly the same. For those in Prague it was that special moment after Communism fell, when there was a decrepit, gray aspect to the city that hid a decadent and at times beautiful soul. The dated and decaying aspect of the city was something that was so refreshing for expats coming over from their version of the US, dominated by slick malls, not rife with coal smoke, not infested with spider-like prostitutes hovering on so many street corners. It felt different, exciting, edgy. Over time many of the gritty corner markets, where bent-backed babickas would hunt for a tiny savings on crusty onions or hairy carrots, became big international banks. We came to feel that the Prague that was ours was threatened and people were offended by the city changing. So while I understood why some of my friends lamented those changes, I felt that asking the city to not change, to not evolve, was unfair. And I actually found the changes exciting, watching business grow, checking out the better restaurants that took root—it felt better to me to celebrate, or at least dispassionately observe, these changes then just complain about them and parrot the line “you should have been here back when, it was way cooler.” Maybe it was in some ways, but what’re you gonna do?

I hate wading through the tourists on Times Square and would consider declining a free meal at some of the chain restaurants in the area because they are so annoying. But was NY better off with Times Square as a seedy, dangerous area? I can buy into the beatnik memories of Times Square being edgy and full of character, but I think it’s just a rose-tinted memory, not a way for a city to grow and thrive.

Similarly, I’m living in Williamsburg in a new construction building—am I somehow causing the demise of what makes that area special? In the same way I didn’t begrudge the bank replacing nasty market, I don’t think it’s a bad a thing for a new luxury building to replace a derelict warehouse. I was at a new beer garden by the BQE the other night, until recently a dilapidated gas station and now a thriving venue—is this a sign that Williamsburg isn’t what it used to be? Or that it’s becoming all that it can be? Sure, some artists are being priced out of Williamsburg, but they’re moving to Bushwick and other places nearby and I think those places will now thrive in a new and exciting way, in fact they already are.

I don’t think that we should accept any new development or a Starbucks/Duane Reade/Chase bank on every corner of our neighborhoods. I’m aware that there are sad results of neighborhoods changing. Whites moving up to Harlem are displacing black families that have lived in the area for generations—that’s not necessarily a good thing. I like the blog that Rindy posted about, Jeremiah’s Vanishing New York, and the faceless cafés that he mentioned, I love those kind of places, the anonymity they provide, and don’t want to see all of them vanish and become Starbucks. We shouldn’t shrug our shoulders and accept everything. But I feel often that it goes too far in the other way and we are automatically skeptical of changes.

When Rindy and I have discussed this particular Junta we have talked about how gentrification, urban change, could be seen as an analogy for changes and challenges to our own identities. How many times have we said “oh, so-and-so has changed so much?” Many times that change is for the worse—whether they’ve gotten rich and are now affected, or whether they had kids and are now boring—but the way I see it we should welcome change, not fear or attack it automatically, the question is in how we manage it, and the really interesting aspect of all of this is the gray area where change, growth, and development meet our desire to capture our lives and put them in a frame.

“The Vanishing City” is an upcoming documentary about New York’s real estate market leading up to the Great Recession of Our Time, which “exposes the real politic behind the alarming disappearance of New York’s beloved neighborhoods, the truth about its finance-dominated economy, and the myth of ‘inevitable change.’” It argues that the change over the last 30 years has not been natural but has been driven by policies favoring commercial and luxury development at the expense of affordable housing. In the process of driving out the middle and working classes, New York has lost some of the dynamism and grit that defined its identity.

“Jeremiah’s Vanishing New York” is a blog with much the same theme (it’s not clear if the blogger is involved in the film, although the film links to the blog). The writer worries that things ain’t what they used to be, that the city loses its character as the rents go higher, that art and love are trampled by the pursuit of money and things. This was where we read about Patti Smith’s comments about New York, that young artists should try Detroit instead… or Poughkeepsie.

I wonder if the city is vanishing, or if we are just allowing other people to determine what changes will happen. How can we empower ourselves to control the future of our city?

A principle issue is gentrification and the expanding of the luxury-condo style of living. Think of the changes that Bloomberg has been behind, like cookie-cutter newsstand structures that allow for standardized advertising spaces. Is it crazy to think that something so seemingly minor represents the suburbanization of the city, “turning Manhattan into one vast gated community for the rich”?

Back at the end of 2008, Josh Cohen lead us through a history of the Downtown Scene and its removal from SoHo and the Lower East Side through city policies that favored cracking down on petty crime and making neighborhoods safe for tourists and Starbucks stores. The makeover of Times Square into Disneyland is a perfect example. We want to revisit this theme and discuss how it will affect New York’s standing as a premier global city in the decades to come, as well as lessons that can be applied to any city worldwide. For example, is it wise that Beijing and Shanghai relentlessly tear down slums and replace them with luxury condos that few can afford?

Jeremy is going to follow up on this and spearhead the topic. We’re looking to write a series of posts outlining the discussion, and everyone’s input is appreciated.

How will musicians and writers, and other artists and tradesmen whose work is now primarily digital, make a living now that their product can be so easily and freely acquired?

Jeremy poses that the barriers to entry have been removed. Any musician with GaragePro can become world-famous: “The limits are only on ability, marketing savvy and drive.” He argues that the business model of the big labels is defunct, and I’ll grant that Big Music has lost its former sway, but can the model really be outdated if there are still commercial pop superstars making big money with the help of mega-amplified media attention?

But ok, bands don’t make much money from their albums anyway, it’s the record companies who take that home. The artist makes money on the tour, right?. That was true for a band like the Grateful Dead, who made all their money from touring and whose records sold poorly – but new, anonymous artists cannot conjure up legions of fans to follow them cross-country. According to EJ, who should know these things, the labels put the young artists out on tour and take most of the returns for themselves, leaving the artists with the merchandise take. “If you’re out on tour and you’re not selling merch, you’re not making money.”

It seems there’s no money to be made for anyone anymore selling CDs. Around the table, no man could remember the last time he’d bought one. Digital music purchases were also rare. All admitted to downloading free music, often illegally, though some said they had dialled back from the days when they could fill an entire hard drive in an afternoon. “I’ve got way more music than I could ever conceivably listen to.”

One participant brought up software downloads as a comparison. “I had a project for which I needed to have Adobe Dreamweaver. Well I looked it up and it’s four hundred bucks! But within minutes through a simple Google search, I was able to find the torrent, follow the crack instructions to load the software onto my machine and use it. Now, would I walk into a computer store and see this program for $400 on the shelf, put it under my coat and try to walk out? No fucking way! But I’m happy to do essentially the same thing over the internet, because it just doesn’t feel like stealing.” This sentiment was echoed around the table.

Despite the lack of legal, paid downloads happening, we were not hostile to the idea. But for most, it was the price. “Ten dollars for an album is still too much.” I asked what a good price would be, since I felt that $10 for an album is not so excessive. Five-dollar albums? Jeremy said yes, he’d buy albums at that price. But Don was obstinate, and said albums should be a dollar, because then he would just buy them on a whim. What didn’t occur to me at the time was that there could be a service that adjusted the price per album according to how much money each subscriber vowed to spend on a monthly or yearly basis. So I could sign up and guarantee that I’d spend $500 this year on music: at that level I could get albums for $2. Kind of like the BMG mail order service of my high school days, when I started my first collection (CDs) by becoming a member. (Join Now and Get 6 CDs FREE!)

Another noted the proliferation of auctioning sites like eBay and asked why there was not a platform for auctioning mp3 songs and albums, or tickets to movies. “Why is every movie the same price? Some movies are clearly worth more than others.”

What about cash donations? I related a recent story in which I had “otherwise acquired” an artist’s album and was so moved by it, and listened to it so often, that I decided it was absolutely criminal that I hadn’t paid this guy – I went online and bought the album I already owned, just on principle (and as a result, probably transferring about $0.89 to the artist in question). And it’s true that people support art they love with their dollars even when they don’t have to. But the argument that won the evening was, “altruism is not a business model.”

If not charity, what about “Artistic Freedom Vouchers” from the government? Each of us gets $100 from Uncle Sam to spend on art and art alone… I leave it to you, gentle reader, to pursue that thread or not.

***

As for the news, we discussed James Fallows’s recent piece on Google “saving the news”, and it seems that the best news for the journalism industry is that everyone inside Google assumes that “users” (“readers”) will once again pay for their newspapers and magazines – and pay willingly – it’s just a matter of how. The argument is sound, because it also depends on the news changing somewhat. No longer will newspapers and media be able to provide the same stories as everyone else. They will have to provide something unique.

“Usually, you see essentially the same approach taken by a thousand publications at the same time,” [Krishna Bharat, the engineer who designed Google News] told me. “Once something has been observed, nearly everyone says approximately the same thing.” He didn’t mean that the publications were linking to one another or syndicating their stories. Rather, their conventions and instincts made them all emphasize the same things. This could be reassuring, in indicating some consensus on what the “important” stories were. But Bharat said it also indicated a faddishness of coverage—when Michael Jackson dies, other things cease to matter—and a redundancy that journalism could no longer afford. “It makes you wonder, is there a better way?” he asked. “Why is it that a thousand people come up with approximately the same reading of matters? Why couldn’t there be five readings? And meanwhile use that energy to observe something else, equally important, that is currently being neglected.” He said this was not a purely theoretical question. “I believe the news industry is finding that it will not be able to sustain producing highly similar articles.”

I think that maxim could be applied equally to producers of art and media everywhere.

The next Junta will take on a subject that is sure to scuttle consensus. We are going to meet to discuss changes in the world of music and media being brought upon by technology. Titled the Creative Destruction Junta in a nod to that economic term whereby one industry dies as times change but in its wake comes a new industry with accompanying new jobs. It sounds like it fits together quite nicely, and while it has proven to be a sound economic concept, it doesn’t necessarily speak to the impact of those lost jobs, those changed lifestyles, and what is lost in the process.

The music industry has been the impetus for this discussion. There are a number of musicians in the Junta and this debate has come up already a number of times, in part at the Downtown music scene Junta, many moons ago at a forgotten East Village bar (read the intro and the wrap to that meeting, from Dec 2008). Essentially we have witnessed the drastic hollowing of the music industry machine as technology has lowered the barrier to entry in both recording and marketing. The compact of the past between musicians and industry has been one whereby the music company would take a gamble on a new act, making a large capital investment in studio time (which historically has been very expensive) and in promoting the band. The odds of success were low, but the record company would recoup its investment on the occasionally blockbuster act that made it millions. Most bands made very little off this model, but it was the only way to get heard by a wider audience.

In the 21st Century that has changed. Bands can now record an album with sophisticated programs on their own computers for very little. They can post the album online for free and reach the whole world. The limits are only on ability, marketing savvy and drive. Traditionally, musicians have made money off playing live with the record companies, as mentioned, receiving the lion’s share of the profits. Records are still made with the backing of the industry, but the evolution of online piracy—from file-trading to the blog revolution—has undermined this model. Now an album has become, in many ways, a business card—“come see me when I hit your home town”.

But there is something lost in this. Bands that work hard to record an album, often with the backing of a scrappy label staffed by dedicated music-heads, are often not making enough to scratch out a living. It is also pretty mind-boggling to figure out what to check out for the average listener.

The world of media has also been hugely affected by the technological changes of recent years. Print media has been devastated by the need to establish an online presence and react to the overwhelming feeling of the online community that its content should be free. The partisan echo chamber has been exacerbated with those on all sides now turning to their favorite bloggers or slanted news source to reinforce their beliefs. This has, in many ways, narrowed and infantilized our society. The implications on our society are potentially huge.

Do you download music? How do you justify it? Are you willing to pay to read a news story, even a few cents? We’re looking forward to hearing your thoughts when gather next, on 6/30 (to be confirmed).

We began Wednesday night with Alex reading from the introduction to his book, which centered on a speech Glenn Beck made in Tampa, in November 2009. There Beck announced “The Plan”, an as-yet-undefined blueprint for taking America back from the progressives and advocates of “social justice”. Beck believes that this phrase is a euphemism for socialism.

Though Beck does not intend to announce details of the plan until August, he has said that it will encompass 100 years. We can safely assume that it will hit the major Tea Party points.

Alex touched upon the emotional nature of Beck’s speaking style in this passage:

Finally, inevitable as gravity, there was the florid signature that appears somewhere at least once, often twice, in every Beck performance. This is the moment when the voice catches, the eyes mist, and it seems, for one or two excruciating moments, that the reluctant patriot might not be able to hold back the tears, so verklempt has he become at his rote invocation of love of country, or the brave troops, or George Washington…

You don’t have to read past the title to understand this is an anti-Glenn Beck book. But right from the beginning, Alex is unrelenting in his criticism, which is sometimes laced with sarcasm. Though he says the book was not commissioned as a hit job on Beck, the target audience is clearly the young, urban, liberal elitists who mostly know Glenn Beck from watching The Daily Show.

Alex talks about Beck as a dangerous force to be stopped, but also as a charlatan whom he compares to P.T. Barnum. The question was raised whether it was fair for us, in our conversation, to ridicule Beck as insincere. Perhaps we are mistaken and he does, in fact, have genuinely strong feelings about “loss of liberty” in this country. Or what if, yes, it is a performance, but it is intended to convey his message, which still has value?

The Junta being what it is, there was not a lot of sympathy for Beck in the group. But Jeff valiantly tried to counter our native arguments with the viewpoints of his father, who watches Beck’s show (as does my own). For those who genuinely feel that the government is encroaching too much on our private lives and businesses, for those who feel that the country has moved too far away from religion, Beck’s message can ring true. Just because some of us feel that these fears are unfounded or misplaced (I, for one, worry far more about the government’s assassinating US citizens or wiretapping our phones without warrant than I do about the federal takeover of GM), this doesn’t mean we should reject out of hand the concerns of our fellow citizens outside the major cities. “If you think about conservatives as stupid, then you’re making a mistake,” Jeff said.

Alex’s rebuttal to that is that Beck is indeed dangerous. When he talks about Obama and progressives representing a “virus that feeds upon the host of the Republic”, when he says “I’m going to be a progressive hunter like the old Nazi hunters” (as he did on his program, June 10, 2009), Alex argues that Beck is playing the fear card to such a degree as to be inciting violence. He is appropriating the language common to genocidal regimes.

Cedric said that, to him, commentators like Beck and Rush Limbaugh seemed to be moving closer to entertainment (and away from serious political debate) every year, with less and less of a grip on historical fact. Alex agreed, and talked about how Beck has, in his opinion, grossly distorted history. “The American Revolution was about destroying centers of power to create an egalitarian society,” he argued. “But over time, private corporate power grew to such a degree that it became necessary for government to introduce a ‘flattening’ effect, with the antitrust laws, income tax, etc. Without government exerting that power, we end up with a segregated society – gated communities and the poor – is that what the Founders wanted?” Adam Serwer, at the American Prospect, talks about Rand Paul employing a similar distortion in his recently panned comments about discrimination.

As is typical for a Junta meeting, we wandered off on various tangents here and there, like the nostalgic idea of 1950s America and whether it really existed (and if it did, why), the merits of the French ban on the burqa, the origins of American progressivism, etc, etc. It was a great night with a lot of food for thought. Be sure to catch our next meeting, likely near the end of June.

Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance

What kind of disc jockey would telephone the wife of a competitor and, over live radio, belittle her and her husband about her recent miscarriage? What kind of patriot would con his listeners into donating $450,000 to finance a series of Rally for America events that turned out to be nothing but a personal promotional tour? What kind of talk-radio host would falsely describe the president of the United States as a communist and black nationalist out to enslave Americans? The purveyor of such tactics—and worse—can only be America’s newest household conservative name: Glenn Beck.

In Common Nonsense, investigative reporter Alexander Zaitchik traces Beck’s personal history, from his troubled childhood through his years as a “morning zoo” DJ to his sudden and meteoric rise to the top of the conservative media heap. He pays special attention to Beck’s transformation from alcoholic, cocaine-snorting, failed disc jockey without a political thought in his head to wealthy, bile-spewing, right-wing demagogue whose radio and television shows form the core of a multimillion-dollar media empire.

Drawing on interviews with Beck’s childhood friends, radio coworkers, and TV colleagues as well as Beck’s own published accounts of his life, Zaitchik reveals the cracks in Beck’s personal creation myth. He pinpoints the moment when Beck, then working in Tampa and about to be fired from his first-ever talk-radio job, discovered right-wing rabble-rousing as his route to long-sought fame and fortune. He shows how Beck adapted the timeworn gags and manipulations of radio hucksterism—including the audience donation drive—into powerful tools for propaganda and personal enrichment. He also demonstrates how Beck’s screeds about ACORN, czars, and socialists are carefully honed to intensify his listeners’ fears and spur them to action at a time and place of his choosing.

Beck’s manipulations are not aimed exclusively at conservative Tea Party activists. One of his favorite gambits, Zaitchik reveals, is to make outrageous statements—such as calling President Obama a racist—to provoke angry and overwrought reactions from the Left. He knows that nothing burnishes his reputation as a right-wing hero victimized by political correctness more effectively than a barrage of scoldings from the “liberal elite.”

You can laugh at his crocodile tears, shake your head at the “facts” out of which he spins his wild theories, gape in wonder at his abrupt transitions from cheap sentiment to vicious attack and back again—but do not underestimate Glenn Beck. Read Common Nonsense and discover how this smart, ambitious self-promoter and his devoted flock poison our political discourse and weaken our democracy.

This meeting will be held Wednesday, May 19, at 7:30pm. Details to follow.

JohnJ started us off with a quick overview of artistic movements in the last 140 years, with an emphasis toward trying to explain how we got to the present moment, not just in terms of movements and periods, but in terms of the modern way art works: galleries, openings, agents, etc. It wasn’t always this way, but there is a pattern. Certain “tastemakers” – those with money or influence – determine what is relevant and what gets promoted, and these people are not all artists. They are curators and patrons and customers, from Lorenzo d’Medici to modern hedge fund collectors.

But that is the “art world,” separate from art itself, where an artist must make a living using his work – and often himself – as a commodity. When did art become a path to celebrity? Some argued that it was with Picasso and other painters around the turn of the 20th century – essentially that celebrity came with the rise of the mass media. But wasn’t Shakespeare’s name known throughout England in his day? Well, yes, but he had a technological boost as well; he wrote in the wake of the invention of the printing press.

There were some interesting sidenotes about writing, with the question being raised whether it should be included in a discussion about “art.” Of course! said I, and some others, although a painter disagreed and it was painting that dominated the conversation. What about poetry, does anyone still write it? Yes, said a poet who was with us, and brought up Mary Oliver, who is indeed prolific, but who is also part of an earlier generation (b. 1935). I pointed out that Twain grew massively wealthy and famous by his writing (although he died a pauper), and until recently it was still possible to become a celebrity by writing (although if it’s fame you’re after, you’d better stick with crime or romance novels and skip the poetry.)

Damien Hirst is “the first billionaire artist.” Which is absurd on its face, but it brings up good questions about authenticity. If Hirst puts a shark in a glass case full of formaldehyde, what makes it different from you or I doing the same? DC wanted to know why a urinal, when placed behind a “velvet rope” by DuChamp, suddenly became art. The question becomes one of context: the place where one views the art, the background of the artist and how much of it is written next to the piece, and of course the title of the piece can change interpretations easily. DuChamp called the urinal Fountain.

DuChamp said that anyone could be an artist; that anything could be art. This was the precursor to Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame, and today it is really happening. Art is life, art is expression, art is commodity. The thing and the representation of the thing now overlap so heavily as to be nearly the same thing. In The Society of the Spectacle, Guy DeBord wrote “All that was once directly lived has become mere representation.” That was 37 years before Facebook. Today it presents a paradox: if everything is art, then nothing is art. So how do we know what’s good or bad?

We have to learn for ourselves what feels authentic and original. And those tastemakers are important. They perform a real function, by paying constant close attention. They watch the ticker of the art world go by, and from the great flow deduce the zeitgeist. Only over time do patterns emerge. But like Jeff*, a painter in attendance, said, “You come to New York as a young person painting still-lifes, with a traditional background, and you see what’s happening here, and you stop doing that, because what you’re doing could have been done 300 years ago.” When John Cage wrote “4:33″ it was revolutionary. But writing a silent song today is not relevant, because it’s not moving the needle.

Towards the end, we spoke of art which lives but is not commoditized – the work of the undiscovered or unappreciated. Henry Darger lived alone in a small apartment, having little social interaction, yet was busy producing lengthy novels and paintings. Van Gogh was never famous in his lifetime and died penniless. And for some, dressing up like superman is a path for “fame and fortune.”

Like JohnJ said, “We could talk about this all night, and no one is going to leave here saying, ‘Yes, we’ve got it figured out now.’” With that in mind, I’ll end here and say thanks again to everyone who came out. It was a great night. Look for the next Junta to gather near the end of May…

* I originally attributed this to Sam. Apologies.

We will have more to say about the nature of the discussion topic over the course of the next week, but for now mark your calendars for Friday, April 30.

• Iran is the dominant power in the Middle East. This was a historical fact for a long time before Saddam Hussein’s Iraq became a check on Iran’s power—and now the US has removed that check. While Israel and Saudi Arabia are America’s allies in the region, Iran could take both of them, as it had indeed already defeated Israel in Lebanon. Even the US could not really take over Iran. We could bomb them into submission and take Tehran, but we would not be able to hold the country against the guerrilla threat they represent.
• Iran has the power to make the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan untenable, and indeed they have already done this to some degree. They have become experts at proxy warfare, and at this point they are able to determine the level of violence that US forces have to deal with in certain parts of both countries.
• All of this, it is important to note, does not require that Iran possess nuclear weapons. Indeed we (America) are quite powerless to stop them acquiring nukes if they are determined to have them. Sanctions won’t work; military attacks won’t work. Iran has the power to drive oil prices through the roof, by mining the Strait of Hormuz or launching missiles at tankers, which would make life in America very painful.
• Given all this, the best option is for America to reach some kind of settlement with Iran. This would involve giving Iran a formal role in maintaining the security of Iraq, which would likely end up partitioned. We would share responsibility for security of the Strait of Hormuz, because both countries have an interest in keeping the oil flowing. Trade and talk would increase as sanctions were lifted and diplomatic ties restored, and Iran would agree to stop arming Hezbollah and Hamas. America would stop talk of regime change and guarantee Iran’s security, in order to foster closer ties and stop the Iranians inching closer to Russia and China. In short, the US would balance its strategic alliances in the region.

There was some controversy in my words, because Jarrod came in right off the bat to challenge my first point, saying that Iran, in the wake of last year’s elections and subsequent protests, had never been weaker. And while it seems the mullahs aren’t going anywhere yet, I would concede that they might feel a bit restricted right now. Jarrod came back later in the evening, twice, on the point on nuclear weapons: the concern is not that Iran will use them, but that they will give them to others who will. “If a white light flashes over Israel, then that’s it, and Iran can say they had nothing to do with it.” Alex contended this forcefully, saying the uranium traces (or something) after an explosion would definitively prove where the bomb was made. So it seems Iran wouldn’t be able to get away with it, although that provides little comfort to Israel, since they are too small to absorb a nuclear explosion and still viably exist.

A lot was made of Ahmedinejad’s words towards Israel; although I argued that he didn’t have the final say in Iran, Noah said convincingly that he obviously spoke for the leadership. But Alex reminded us all that the fact is that there is no evidence Iran is pursuing nukes—citing the most recent intelligence reports. Noah claimed otherwise, mentioning the articles we have been seeing on our front pages for so long. But we also read a lot about Iraq’s weapons programs in the newspapers, I said, which turned out to be bluster.

We debated whether we could know the character of the Iranian people. Is there a “red/blue” divide, similar to America’s, with rural people more supportive of Ahmedinejad’s populism and jingoism, and urban “elites” more inclined towards cosmopolitanism and internationalism? Some argued in general support of this idea, although my conclusion was that we generally know very little of the Iranian people, despite the seeming ease of false labels.

The conversation broke into pieces several times during the evening, which was great. There were 10 people there, so it was inevitable that mini-convos would break out here and there. Of course I couldn’t follow everything that happened at once.

My most contentious point may have been the partitioning of Iraq. Some participants, Noah most vocally, said this would be crazy, that after spending so much blood and treasure we should “lose” Iraq. My point was that it was inevitable without American troops on the ground: should we stay forever? “Well, we’re still in Germany, we’re still in Korea,” Noah said. This is true of course, but it worries me. I don’t foresee a day when American soldiers are not being attacked in Iraq, or Afghanistan. I don’t think Korea and Germany are good models (in fact, I don’t think we should have troops in those countries, anyway). I argued that Iran already had some de facto control over southern Iraq, and that they would take it over when we left, anyway. But Noah seemed to think that we could leave a strong Iraqi government behind. This I doubt, and so it seemed we would not reach any agreement here.

Mark said something which put everything in perspective. Over the last 15-20 years (and I would argue, even longer), when the US has seen a geopolitical problem in the world, it has resolved to do something about it. We have gone into countries, or engaged with countries, in a way which we determined would solve the problem. We’ve taken decisive action. But most of the time, there have been unforeseen consequences that have either made the original problem worse, or created wholly new problems to deal with. Perhaps, in the future, we should endeavor to do less, to be more passive, and to let things play out before we act.

***

What are your thoughts? If you were there, fill in my account with points I missed. If you weren’t, what would you have added?