Remembrances

9/11 killed newspapers. Newspapers, to be sure, were long on the way out but the sheer power of that one event let Americans know that newspapers simply were no longer good enough. On 9/11, if you will recall, the television became nothing but news on all channels (*) for a few days and from then on Americans looked to cable TV to give them their daily reportage because we could no longer afford to wait til the next morning to be informed. On September 12 people might've still cared but by September 13, 2001, all Americans knew that newspapers were no longer of any use (with five notable exceptions: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today and LA Times).

The cable news era really didn't last all that long. Sure, it's still around but by 2001 the internet was pretty well ingrained in American culture,with handheld devices already on the way. Once you had all the news of the world in your hand, then News became not simply a morning burst or an evening update, but a full time all day preoccupation. With the inventions of Facebook, Twitter, etc., then News became even more tailored to fit to each individual person and the abstractness of the News became ever more personalized, immediate, important.

Now to say that 9/11 itself was instrumental in this changing media landscape is a bit of a reach. It was the changing technology and social landscape that made these changes inevitable. 9/11 as a historical event coincides with these changes even if its effect were merely ephemeral. For example, after 9/11 Americans became shockingly non-political...for about six months. No one wanted to disagree about anything for a while until, to my recollection, about the spring of 2002, when political differences began to re-emerge and harden into the roughly 50/50 split of partisanship that still reigns to this day. The expanding array of channels on the TV and then the explosion of the blogosphere and the podcasting world and social media calcified America's political splits by allowing ever more individuality and seemingly less reliance on the party line (which ironically calcifies the party lines as the only two games in town).

On to the shifting media landscape, let us layer over the shifts in the Republican and Democrat parties of the time. Here's how the Republicans work: they tend to go for the guy that finished second last time and/or the oldest man in the room. This method was interrupted by George W. Bush when he seized on his famous name and his dad's built-out political machine to jump the line in the 2000 election. 2000 was supposed to be John McCain's year but Bush, governor of Texas at the time, jumped to the head of the class and kinda stole McCain's thunder, pushing back his executive ambitions until 2008.

Here's how the Democrats work: they prefer a new face they've never seen before, a rousing public speaker that has no history whatsoever (think Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton). This is hard to come by, so more often than not they end up with political hacks that don't inspire them but seem to be the least bad choice available (think Walter Mondale or Al Gore).

In 2000 when Bush upset the order, he compounded it by bringing along a protege (Dick Cheney) that was clearly not going to follow in his footsteps. So Bush not only upset the order, he upset it in a manner that would remain upset for multiple election cycles, which is kinda devastating to how the Republican Party operates. And on the other side, Al Gore didn't make himself electable until well after his loss in 2000, and even though by 2004 everyone was expecting Hillary Clinton to make a move, she paused rather than rushing ahead, leaving John Kerry to glumly Dukakis his way through the 2004 election.

So in the early 2000s we had a rapidly evolving media landscape and a topsy turvy political landscape, neither of which is directly related to 9/11, but clearly that was the tower that loomed over this evolving time.  What if there was a single person that had the gravitas, the money and the profile to enter that post-9/11 cultural and technological shift and pull it all together? There was one: John F. Kennedy, Jr., except that he died on July 16, 1999.

JFK Jr was the owner/editor of a then-influential political magazine called George. It was a late 1990s attempt to bring politics into the popular culture, to bring Washington down to the mainstream in a manner familiar to movie stars, pop stars and athletes. Now, personally, I wasn't a fan of the magazine or of that approach generally--indeed, I think the main problem with Democracy in general is that it leads the populace to think that they are supposed to like everything, which is simply unrealistic and leads to nothing but disappointment and despair and a bratty petulance amongst the electorate. Nonetheless, I think JFK Jr was well on his way to tapping into a paradigm that he might have had the power to dominate. The thing about JFK Jr that I thought at the time was that he would've been happy to remain a media mogul, a political gadfly that didn't actually have to dabble in the brutal world of politics. He was the kind of guy that could've remained above it all while still being quite influential.

So what kind of moves would he have made in the post-9/11 world? Perhaps he would've failed. Perhaps he would've clung to fading paradigm of magazines and print media, perhaps he would've scoffed at the worthwhile impact of newfangled technologies and the new media world would've left him behind. I doubt it, but let's go down that road for a second. Perhaps he would've tried to buy a paper or a cable news outlet but as rich as the Kennedys are, they're not that kind of rich. The Washington Post was bought by Jeff Bezos and the Wall Street Journal was bought by Rupert Murdoch. The Kennedys are rich but they're not internet rich--which actually suggests to me that JFK Jr would've courted the internet wealth and tried to capture some for himself. JFK Jr would've partnered with people like Mark Cuban and tried to get in on the next big thing.

But not for the money. JFK Jr had money, seizing new technologies would've been for the reach, the influence, not the money. So what kind of influence would he have sought? He was a Democrat, to be sure, and in the partisan hardening of the early 2000's, he surely would've opposed George Bush and doesn't it seem plainly obvious that he would've adored the rise of Barack Obama? Think back on it: if JFK Jr was on the scene at the time, doesn't it seem plausible that the two would have been intertwined? (**)

And by 2016, with the Republicans still in disarray, with no reasonable replacement for Mitt Romney, and reaching deep into the media swirl to come out with a reality show star, doesn't it seem quite possible that following the Obama years that JFK Jr could've thought to himself, "I'm the guy, this is my time and I'm not letting no Donald fuckin' Trump become president!"

Yeah...kind of a counterfactual reach--one I did not even expect to make when I sat down to write this! Again, I was working on the notion that JFK Jr would've studiously AVOIDED a life of true politics, preferring to be a removed influencer, a guy floating above it all. But clearly he would've loved Obama, not hard to imagine that he would've wanted to be for Obama what Arthur Schlesinger was for his dad. And unlike Schlesinger, JFK Jr would've had the backing, the gravitas and the money to run in Obama's shadow. Imagine that...it's not hard to imagine.

Now in counterfactuals we are blessed by knowing how the world turned out. It was not predictable in July of 1999 where the media and political (***) scene would've gone. It was not predictable what kind of world JFK Jr would have entered had he not gone down in a plane crash. It easy 20+ years later to look back, see what happened and reimagine how JFK Jr would've fit into it. It's not easy to look ahead from that moment and know.

And that not-knowing is where we find ourselves now with the death of Kobe Bryant. Yeah, this is actually a remembrance of Kobe Bryant--and Gianna Bryant, a name I'd never heard before last Sunday afternoon--because when I first saw the story of his death in a helicopter crash in Los Angeles, the celebrity death it most reminded me of was JFK Jr. I've had this thought experiment about JFK Jr in my head for years but now trying to play it forward to a new out-of-nowhere celebrity death is a totally different thing.

Why Kobe? Because like JFK Jr he was insanely popular, much admired and respected and super fuckin' rich. Kobe was a competitive man, a man interested in the world, in the future and his influence would've most certainly gone beyond sports. It's easy to say Kobe would've been involved in making movies (****) but I think he would've been involved in tech companies, internet start-ups, maybe even apparel or music or other popular culture industries, maybe even medicine or other science interests. Dude, Kobe had money and the interest in the world and the competitive spirit to make big differences in sectors and industries and cultures that we can't even begin to predict.

Clearly Kobe was a devoted father, clearly spent a ton of time with Gianna in particular and was invested in his children in the way he was invested in himself. And perhaps this attempt at a counterfactual shouldn't be applied to Kobe but to Gianna. She was on her way to a privileged education and upbringing, she would've mingled with the greats because her dad was a man that could go anywhere, therefore she could go anywhere. Was Kobe gonna be president of the USA? No, I don't think he would've ever been interested in the gig (what a fuckin' dead end job!). But these Bryant daughters were built to be assassins and it's not at all hard to imagine that Gianna Bryant may well have transcended all of that and moved into a life of public service. Indeed, the three surviving daughters will miss out on Kobe being in their lives, but they'll still be treated like royalty and will have numerous opportunities to expand on their in-born Mamba mentalities. Perhaps their inspiration going forward isn't a life of sports or entertainment media, perhaps they become great scholars in law or science. Hey, man, I wouldn't put anything past the children of Kobe Bryant, perhaps the most single-minded achiever of my lifetime.

I started this with the thought that the real tragedy of last Sunday is that we're gonna miss out on Kobe's second act and just like JFK Jr, I am convinced he would've had one. Perhaps he would've failed it in his efforts, perhaps even become a laughingstock, but Kobe would've done something and now we'll never know what he might have accomplished. Or what he might have accomplished through Gianna. Likewise, JFK Jr would've done something....I dunno what, but it would've been something. And society missed out and now we're missing again.

And, yes, counterfactuals are a trite thought experiment but I talked myself into believing JFK could, in fact, be POTUS right now. But outside of Seinfeld re-runs, who thinks of JFK Jr these days? The real tragedy of last Sunday is the thought that Kobe's influence might not last beyond the rest of this NBA season. That's fucking tragic, that's a loss for all of us, whether we were fans of Kobe or not.



(*) I remember ABC News, CBS News and CNN on virtually every channel. I suppose Fox News and NBC News must've been there, too, but I don't recall them. Only C-Span (and the Weather Channel?) remained, everything else was pure news. Also, even more shockingly upon reflection, it was commercial-free for at least 2-3 days. Indeed, the first commercial was something like a signal that normality was returning.

(**) This all depends on JFK Jr's reaction to the viability of Hillary Clinton. Either he would've been her main supporter or he would've sought to rid the world of more Clintons and backed away from her. Hard to say where this counterfactual-within-the-counterfactual would've gone.

(***) Check out where George W. Bush was as of July 12, 1999. The morphing of the Republican Party had already begun when JFK Jr perished.

(****) Man, doesn't it seem plainly obvious that once Lebron retired from b-ball and dedicated himself to making movies (which he certainly will) that he and Kobe would've been perfect partners? Man, that's a duo that really could've done a lot for several more decades. Damn!

(Part 1) Iran: Who was General Qassem Soleimani?

At the end of 2019 I was contemplating my next post here with the thought that 2020 might be a bad year. Then, on January 3, the USA assassinated General Qassam Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Quds Force with a drone strike at the Baghdad airport and I knew was I was onto something.

I chose the video above out of a plethora of similar videos because this one is short and to the point. A detail I would add: Soleimani was not a cleric, he was not a religious man that people bowed down to because they think they're supposed to. He was a general, a bureaucrat, a diplomat, a powerful secular man. He was arguably more important than the Iraqi president or even any of the Mullahs. This guy knew where the bodies were buried, he knew the numbers to the bank accounts, he knew all the friends and all the enemies and he moved amongst all of that. For the USA to cut him down in a single sudden move is an amazingly bold stroke that will surely invite a larger war.

....Or will it?

The Trump administration is suggesting that this strike was justified because of reports of possible forthcoming attacks on allied forces. If you will recall, the Brits bristled at similar American paranoia last summer so the idea that imminent danger is a reasonable excuse will be challenged; that said, the Germans did not bristle at such reports and stood by the Americans at the time, so perhaps imminent danger will have its supporters (there's probably a time limit on how long that debate will matter, we'll see if the distinction is even important). The fact that Soleimani was in Baghdad meeting with local militia forces after a similar visit to Syria is probably the only evidence the Americans have (or will offer) to the notion that Soleimani was plotting something big.

Tensions have been simmering between USA and Iran for several months (well, several decades) and I'd say this move is the retaliation for Iran's strike on a Saudi oil refinery back in September (which produced no response at the time).  Look at this picture:



Dude, Tom Brady in his prime wasn't this accurate! When seeing the unbelievable accuracy of Iranian missiles (or was it drones?), the Pentagon must have known some real shit was on the way. (My first thought when seeing this pic was, "Oh shit! They can do that?") And this came, as you will recall, after several months of shenanigans in the Persian Gulf and presaged a series of protests across Iraq. When one of those protests finally got into the American green zone in Baghdad, the Americans acted (*) by taking out Soleimani.

Okay, so what now? Well, as I write this there are reports of Iranian rocket launches on American bases in Iraq. That was predictable. I'd say keeping these Iraqi protests going is the next step for both sides, which calls attention to what I've been thinking all along: in the beginning this is about control of Iraq.

In 2003, George Bush invaded Iraq with the intention (I believe) of establishing 1) a battleground for Arab extremists and Americans to go at it and/or 2) a neutral ground between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi Shia threw off American overtures, forcing the Americans to maintain their Iraqi positions by shielding the Sunnis (which was precisely NOT the original mission). Once Obama removed American forces it sent the Sunnis into a freak tornado that produced Daesh (or ISIS, if you prefer). Daesh was able to grab impressive swaths of territory along the Euphrates River across the Iraq-Syria frontier and, in the end, had no allies whatsoever. Indeed, the emergence of Daesh is what brought Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, Israel, NATO, Russia and USA all together and set the stage for where we are now.

Since Obama pulled out American troops and Daesh rose, Iraq has been steadily infiltrated by paramilitary units (PMUs) largely supported by Iran. Over the years the Americans have insisted that the Iraqi parliament must decide how to deal with these PMUs, whether to expel them completely (and...how does that get done?) or incorporate them as a national military (also, a probably impossible task). But for Baghdad to truly control Iraq, they must control or dispel the PMUs. The aforementioned Iraqi protests began in the Shia area and spread because....well protestors often don't know what they really want. The Americans were encouraged by this because they interpreted this as anti-Iran (and it may have been). But outside of ousting the Prime Minister in December, I don't see that much else got accomplished except the communication of a basic unease in the face of the powers that be. The PMUs are still out there, supporting the protests in some cases and brutally suppressing them in others.

So how does Iraq deal with the murder of Iran's greatest soldier on their soil? I don't know. But Iran will ramp up its influence on the PMUs and USA will have to find the weaknesses in Iraqi support of the PMUs to fight back. That is undoubtedly the first step for both sides if a full-on war is actually coming.



(*) Ehh...that was the excuse, anyway. Those protests had been raging for months, it was only a matter of time that protestors ended up at the American embassy. The idea that Americans were truly threatened is probably an exaggeration or that Iran had anything to do with it is probably mostly fabricated.

(Part 2) Will a new gas deal fuel regional rivalry?

So let's re-set the scene: Turkey is advancing in the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa (and we must assume the Red Sea is also in play), by force potentially. This is something that the Iranians absolutely want to stop. But USA has just crippled the Iranian response, while doing nothing to stop Turkey.

In short: Turkey is advancing and Iran is shrinking at the hands of the USA. That's what's going on in the Middle East right now. Iraq will become the battleground that Bush envisioned back in the day but the real war will be (or would have been) the oil fields of the eastern Mediterranean but I'm guessing USA and the EU have already decided to allow Turkey to take over (**). As long as the Iranians are sidelined (and the Saudis remain rich and clueless), the West will allow the Turks to reestablish its Ottoman era claims from the Gulf of Sidra to the Gulf of Aden.

Where does the assassination of Soleimani fit into this? It cripples Iran's chances to curtail Turkish advancement. Again: Soleimani was a powerful and knowledgable guy (***), replacing him will be virtually impossible (indeed, the next few weeks will be a referendum on Soleimani's management style: did he leave behind a crew ready to snap into action or no?). Iran has to respond (and the response has begun as of just a few hours ago) but their fighting capability has already been severely limited. One scary part of that calculus is that since their conventional fighting capability is in shambles, they may resort to unconventional tactics, like attacking embassies (and Trump hotels and resorts) or maybe by busting out the weapons we don't know about. Or by attacking Turkey or Saudi Arabia.

How big will the war be? I dunno. Might be huge, might already be over, hard to tell. But look for Russia to be a peacemaker and don't be surprised if this all ends with China expanding its position in the Middle East right as the Americans are eager to leave.

(**) Well, until they agree to see Turkey as a threat and start chopping them back. The Middle East is about on-going battle between Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The West has chosen Turkey to be the winner (for now). Iran has seemingly already been check-mated.

(***) Unlike, say, Osama bin Laden. When USA finally assassinated bin Laden, he was just a dude living in a house in the middle of nowhere. He had no power of any kind. Soleimani, on the other hand, was Iran's Eisenhower and J. Edgar Hoover rolled into one.