Nothing Aside

Review: Billy Goat Tavern, Washington DC

And now for something completely different.

I went to the brand new Washington, D.C. location of Chicago's famous Billy Goat Tavern this past weekend, and to put it succinctly, I was horrified.  For anyone who has been to the legendary Billy Goat Tavern on lower Michigan Avenue in Chicago, where the smell of grease is strong, where every surface is covered with Chicago Tribune clippings, where the Cubs rule, where pictures of goats and Tribune columnists adorn the walls, and where there is no Pepsi (only Coke) and no fries (only chips), the shock of the pristine Starbuck'd location and feel of the D.C. branch of this fine Chicago institution would be too much to bear. 

Not only were there chips and Coke on the menu, but there were even White Sox pennants hanging behind the bar and above the condiment station!  The White Sox!  In the Billy Goat Tavern!  That is blasphemous (unless, of course, it is some roundabout way of transferring the Cubs' curse to the White Sox, in which case I'm all for it). 

Furthermore, there was a sign welcoming both elephants and donkeys, something that would be unheard of in the Chicago original where, during the Republican convention of 1944 in Chicago, a sign went up proclaiming "No Republicans Allowed."  Perhaps this concession is a political necessity in a political city, but it still goes against the grain of the Billy Goat Tavern tradition.

The burgers are identical, though the buns lack the grease-infusion offered by the decades old grill surface in the Michigan Avenue original.  And again, there were chips and Coke.  That's a slap in the face to tradition.

I think I will be reserving my Billy Goat visits for the Chicago original.  This D.C. location has sold out and sold out badly. 

Declare Victory and Come Home?

On Wednesday President Bush will give a speech about our current situation in Iraq.  Though he has been giving the same speech about staying the course and "we'll stand down when Iraqis stand up", expect this speech to be a bit different.  Though they will never admit it, Bush administration officials must recognize that Rep. Murtha's comments about redeploying our troops have had an effect on the debate about Iraq.  Suddenly we have seen a shift from some administration officials about when that "stand down when Iraqis stand up" might happen.  Seemingly, it is when American public opinion says so and has little to do with the actual readiness of Iraqi security forces.  Recent comments by Secretary Rice and others have chipped away at the notion that we will really stay until the situation improves.  From the Los Angeles Times:

U.S. Starts Laying Groundwork for Significant Troop Pullout From Iraq

By Paul Richter and Tyler Marshall, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict.

In a departure from previous statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.

President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.

The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.

Now it should be clear to all that Iraqi forces have not made miraculous strides in the last few weeks.  To suggest otherwise is nonsense.  The Iraqi security forces are, for the most part, just as inept as they were a few months ago when the Bush administration was saying that we were in it for the long haul and wouldn't abandon the Iraqi people.  Suddenly, however, we're declaring Iraq ready to go, and we're doing so right when political dissent against the war has been coming from all sides.  Very convenient.

And all of this is unfortunate.  Leaving now would be bad for America's security image in the world (the weakening of which precipitated our battle against terrorism in the first place), and would be bad for the Iraqi people since security forces are simply not ready to take over.  On the other hand, there is something to be said for the notion that our withdrawal would make the insurgency wither substantially, as all groups in Iraq seem to agree that the coalition presence is the major impetus for violence and that lacking an American target, the terrorists would quickly be seen for what they are: murderers and criminals. 

That is not to say that things would work themselves out if we left, for a sectarian power grab conflict (a nice phrase for a low-level civil war) would undoubtedly erupt, but a lack of foreign targets in Iraq would quickly change the dynamics of good versus bad in Iraq.  Some clarity in that regard, for the Iraqi people, would do the country some good.  If Iraqis hate the terrorists but resent the American presence, they will be silent.  If they have only the terrorists to resist, I think we would see results.

Again, all of this is an unfortunate outgrowth of a poorly implemented plan for remaking the Middle East.  The Neocon plan for spreading democracy through the Middle East was and is a noble one that I support, but its admirable vision has been tarnished by a Bush administration which almost willfully chose to undermine the success of that vision through poor implementation.  We needed more troops from the outset, but now find ourselves stuck with not enough boots on the ground to win, and just enough not to lose.  That is not a tenable position for our military.  On that account, Murtha is right to call for a redeployment of forces.

So what are we left with?  We have an Iraq that hasn't improved much in the past few months, which still lacks an adequate state security apparatus, and suddenly the Bush administration has decided that since it is losing ground across the political spectrum, we can just declare victory and come home.  That is a weak option, but among our feeble choices, it may unfortunately be our best.

Review: Istanbul: Memories And The City, By Orhan Pamuk

Upon leaving Turkey in December 2003 a friend gave me a copy of Orhan Pamuk's My Name Is Red, as a farewell gift.  As I waited in the Ankara airport at 5am for the ticket counter to open for the day, I worked my way through the book.  It is a murder mystery set in the late Ottoman period.  Each chapter in the story is told from the perspective of a different character and as a result the reader sees the intrigue of the murder and the drama of the Sultan's court in vivid detail.

Or so I have heard.  I never actually finished that book for a variety of reasons (I'm generally not a big fan of fiction/mysteries, I hadn't slept the night before, etc.), but I now have a greater urge to come back to it.  After reading Pamuk's Istanbul: Memories and the City, it is much easier to see where the author's motivations for literature come from, and why he chooses the characters and themes that he does.  Istanbul is a wonderful memoir of both the author's early life and the city that he has called home.  Critics of Pamuk often say that his style is too depressing and melancholy to be enjoyable, but in Istanbul, Pamuk explains where this feeling, hüzün in Turkish, comes from.  In many ways, Pamuk's own childhood experiences and emotions parallel the hüzün he senses in Istanbul, the once great capital of the Byzantine and then Ottoman empires.

For those who have spent any extended period in Istanbul, this memoir of the city and of its greatest contemporary author is a must-read.  Pamuk describes the mood and aura of the city perfectly: a once magnificent capital of the world, chalked full of a history that its residents can never shake, engulfed in a past that weighs down their present but also defines their unique future.  His accounts of wandering the back streets of Beyoğlu, Üsküdar, Nişantaşı and Taksim will bring back wonderful memories to those who have done the same.  His descriptions of the sights of the city, along with the many old photographs included in the pages, offer a sense of Istanbul that many sense and taste, but few can describe and make real.

For those of you out there who have not been to Istanbul, however, Pamuk's narrative provides a brilliant tale of childhood imagination that we can all relate to.  Pamuk shows through stories and his own memories how his world view developed alongside the city that he alternatively resented, loved, fought with and embraced.  His stories of fighting with his brother, of knowing but not knowing about his father's mistresses, of skipping school so he could explore the city, of watching yet another yali (an old wooden Ottoman summer house on the Bosphorus) burn into the night, of living on the edge of a changing 1960's bourgeois elite, of finding himself amidst it all - these stories provide the reader with a true accounting of a life and a city. 

Having neglected My Name Is Red (and Pamuk's other novel, Snow) for the past three years, Istanbul has provided me with an insight into the inspiration behind Pamuk's work in such a way that I am anxious to crack open his two works of fiction.  Istanbul: Memories and the City is highly recommended.

Oily Participants

Last week a document obtained by The Washington Post showed that, contrary to their testimony, representatives from several big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force to craft energy policy.  When questioned by Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) about whether they or their representatives participated in these meetings, just about all of the oil executives had flat out denied it.  Of course, they were lying.

Well, according to the GOP, it all depends on the definition of "participation".  Huh?

Yesterday, Marnie Funk, a spokeswoman for the GOP staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, one of the two panels that convened the hearing, said its lawyers had reached a preliminary conclusion: Based on a court decision in which two groups unsuccessfully challenged the secrecy of the Cheney task force, Funk said the executives appeared to be telling the truth.

"What we simply determined was that the definition of 'participation' was something litigated, and what the court concluded was that attending meetings, and even making presentations, did not rise to the level of fully participating," Funk said.

If being at an energy task force meeting, giving presentations and speaking candidly with those who make the decisions is not considered "participation" I don't know what is.

Worth A Read

The Winter issue of The Washington Quarterly, the international policy journal I currently work for, is now available online.  Check it out.  There is a section of five articles on various aspects of U.S.-China relations, as well as a spattering of articles included in our "Provocations" section about defeating insurgencies, German foreign policy, the legacy of the Soviet era in Russian political culture, and the future prospects of the European Union, among other topics.  It's worth a read, especially if you're feeling particularly wonkish today.

Israel Gets Centered

Israeli politics are about to get a shake-up.  Ariel Sharon is announcing today that he will leave the Likud Party and found a new somewhat centrist party.  I see this as a great thing for both Israeli politics and for the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  Since the beginning of this second intifada, the two major parties in Israeli politics, Labor and Likud, have become characatures of themselves.  Labor has shrunk from its responsibilities to be a strong alternative voice for peace and has instead embraced almost unconditional withdrawl as its party platform.  On the other side, Likud has continued its never-ending battle between ardent nationalistic hawks like Benjamin Netanyahu and more centrist and reasonable leaders like (gulp) Ariel Sharon.

Mr. Sharon, 77, has been battling self-styled "rebels'' within Likud who opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and four small settlements in the West Bank last summer as a violation of the party's principles and history. The rebels have been led by former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who quit the cabinet just before a final vote approving the Gaza withdrawal.

While he has kept his intentions to himself, Mr. Sharon has told intimates that he would like to be the leader who defines, at last, the borders of Israel. He has said that he does not want to be a prime minister whose hands are bound by a party that opposes territorial compromise with the Palestinians and would object to any significant Israeli pullback in the occupied West Bank.

Certainly there is something in this move that is motivated by Sharon's quest for a proud legacy.  Every leader wants to be the one who finally brokers a lasting peace.  But more importantly, a centrist party in Israel - one that won't back down to the obfuscations of the Palestinian leadership but which will still seek reasonable peace - is desparately needed.  Sharon's move to kick settlers out of Gaza this past summer was a brilliant move.  He gave the Palestinians what they wanted - Israel out of at least some of their territory - while making the Palestinian leadership prove that it can govern and control its newfound territory.  The jury is still out on that part of it. 

Sharon's move, along with Labor's unexpected rejection of long time party leader Shimon Peres and subsequent sprint out of the grand coalition government and into the arms of its peacenik left, will force new elections sometime in the next 90 days.  In combination with the Palestinian legislative elections set for January, the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace may change dramatically in the near future.  With any luck Netanyahu will be isolated on the right fringe with the rest of the unreasonable Likud stalwarts and Amir Peretz, Labor's new lefty leader, will see a similar fate as Peres and a few other Labor moderates jump ship to join Sharon's new party.

I see this all as a good thing for Israel and, potentially, for the Palestinians.  2006 could be a big year.

Quick Exit, Foiled

This picture is just too funny to pass up:

After fielding some tough questions at a news conference in Beijing, Bush tried to make a quick exit only to find that his chosen escape route, the big wooden doors to his right, were locked.  He then had to awkwardly field a few more questions before being directed out of the room by his personal aide.  What is with the Bush presidents and awkward moments in Asia (see George H. W. Bush puking on the Japanese prime minister in 1992)?

The Nuge Chimes In

However unintentional, it seems to be Kenyon Week here at Nothing Aside.  This time the contributor is none other than Kenyon's president, S. Georgia Nugent (affectionately known as "The Nuge" or "G. Nugget" by students).  Writing as part of a series on colleges for Slate, Nugent takes up the issue of moral and ethical development as an important part of one's complete education.  Perhaps she has been spending a bit of time in Horowitz House with our esteemed Political Science faculty?

But what of the emphasis on moral development? On the same national survey of faculty, only 69 percent identified "developing moral character" as the most important aspect of a college education, and only 39 percent chose "enhancing spiritual development." When I have asked my faculty colleagues their views, they say they are too "modest" to assert the ability to develop moral character and too wary, in today's political climate, to meddle in students' spiritual development. Perhaps it's time for me and my fellow presidents to draft the syllabus for that capstone course in metaphysics with which the presidents used to send their graduates off into the world.

What would be the syllabus for such a course? My response—not at all flippant—would be: It doesn't matter. What I'm talking about is not a required reading list; rather it is an experience of understanding and growth that might take a myriad of forms. The goal is not mastery of a subject but maturity as an adult—attaining a degree of self-understanding, an appreciation for the limits of the human condition, empathy for others, and a sense of responsibility for civil society. For me, as a classicist, the syllabus would probably focus on the Homeric epics and Greek tragedy. These texts have, to my mind, almost unparalleled power to anchor us in the world and confront us with both our wrenching limitations and our soaring possibilities as human beings. But for another colleague, the entire syllabus would be Melville's Moby Dick; for another, such a course would consist of teaching his students to construct a scientific instrument by hand; for a fourth, the course might be organic chemistry taught inductively through group discussion. What matters is not the subject but the sensibility. In fact, each of these hypothetical courses is one I have known a fine faculty member to teach, in a way that offered not information "to pass the exam" but the wisdom of a life-changing experience.

Kenyon's emphasis on the roots of the liberal arts education are, I think, stronger than most schools like it.  For the best example of what Kenyon is all about though, I must refer back to the speech given by David Foster Wallace at my commencement last May.

Now that I am out of Kenyon, I really see how unique the liberal arts education is and how far it can take students.  Too often here in Washington I find myself surrounded by overly-ambitious students (often from George Washington University, though the others are no less guilty) who don't know the first thing about political philosophy, the roots of our socio-political motivations or our responsibility to civic virtue.  Since their first day of college they have been studying "Eastern European Security Issues", "Weapons Proliferation in Latin America" or some other equally admirable yet obscure and precise topic.  All of these classes and subjects are of great interest, but without the theory behind the practice, what good is it all?  If you don't know what Rousseau is blabbering on about, or don't comprehend why Aristotle would bother with a few words on political ethics, each real world crisis of our present day will be an unnerving surprise.  If we have the right "sensibility" and the right degree of "self-understanding", as Nugent says, we'll be prepared to face what comes next with confidence and control.  That is what a true education is all about.

Taking A Look At Lebanon

For those of you who have an interest in the future of Lebanon, be sure to read (or continue reading) Michael Totten's on-the-ground accounts of life in the "new" Lebanon now that Syria has officially pulled its military out.  But for some of the more down-and-dirty political details of Lebanon's limp towards fuller democracy free of violence and extremism, be sure to read Chris DeVito's online article in Foreign Policy.  He looks at the potential leaders in Lebanese politics who could legitimately take on and challenge the influence and bully-like behavior of Hezbollah.  Not an easy task in a country that is all too familiar with conflict and the politics of brutes.

Full disclosure: Chris is yet another Kenyon alum, just a year ahead of me, working for a prominent foreign policy publication.  We're everywhere!  If I remember correctly, while at Kenyon Chris studied the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and issues in that region quite extensively.  He knows his stuff.

Liars

Now we know why Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) didn't want to have the energy executives sworn in during their hearing before the joint Energy and Commerce committees last week: they were lying through their teeth.

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

...

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.

...

Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "

"No," said Raymond.

"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.

"We did not, no," Mulva said.

They blatantly lied to Congress.  No doubt they knew questions about the task force meeting would come up in the hearing, and no doubt Senator Stevens knew this as well.  It seems fairly clear that Stevens' forceful rejection of calls from Democrats to swear in the witnesses was an effort to allow false statements to be made. (Note: When half a dozen Major League Baseball players were called to testify before Congress about steroid use, they were all sworn in).

While I'm not sure if there is any strong reason to nail the Bush administration for meeting only with energy executives and not environmentalists and others during its energy task force meetings in the summer of 2001, the flagrant acceptance of false statements by Stevens is something that should be looked into.  He knew they would perjure themselves, and therefore used his power as chairman to keep the testimony from being under oath.  That is an abuse of power.