Monday, January 08, 2007
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Saturday, January 06, 2007
| ||||||||||||
|

Monday, January 08, 2007
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Saturday, January 06, 2007
| ||||||||||||
|
To the Editor: Re “Panel Urges Basic Shift in U.S. Policy in Iraq” (front page, Dec. 7): Reading the 79 recommendations from the Iraq Study Group, I can’t imagine President Bush admitting his failures; bringing in controversial experts to help him carry out its suggestions when he surrounds himself only with yes people; and allowing diplomatic talks to take place with Iran and Syria. The report shows the utter chaos in our interagency communications; the frustration of the military generals; our abject failure of privatizing reconstruction; the wasted money on building permanent bases; and the complete lack of knowledge of the history in the Middle East. And those are just a few of the problems! What a rebuke to the Decider. All I can say is what a mess, and good luck. Jacqueline Jones Portland, Ore., Dec. 7, 2006 • To the Editor: Reading your article about the Iraq Study Group’s report, I could only wonder: Does it occur to anyone else how sad it is that there had to be a study on the war in Iraq at all? A competent president with advisers both military and civilian would have had a grip on the situation, the mood of the country and the political ramifications of our policy (or lack thereof) in Iraq and acted accordingly. The president waited until after the election to bend ever so slightly away from “staying the course,” and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s memo admitting failure was secret until after his resignation. Meanwhile, the committee investigating the Iraq war was taking care of business while the president waited in the wings for guidance and answers. The public saw the results of the study coming for a year or more; there is nothing revealing or new in the report that hasn’t been in the news or on the lips of advisers for months. We now have to wait and see if in the president’s skewed view, this report is more credible than all the professional input he has received over the last three years. What a waste of time, money and, sadly, more lives in Iraq. Laure Dunne Darien, Conn., Dec. 7, 2006 • To the Editor: While our country spends money and loses face by hiring an elite panel of advisers to help us out of Iraq, let’s also remember a different group of advisers: the “focus group” of millions of Americans (and millions worldwide) who took to the streets in 2002 and 2003 to protest invading in the first place. Many of them, with none of this panel’s expertise, had the common sense to expect the very situation we’re in now. David Dartley New York, Dec. 7, 2006 • To the Editor: Your front-page article says that rather than embracing President Bush’s goal of “victory in Iraq” or “the White House’s early aspiration that Iraq might be transformed into a democracy in the near future ... the panel chose instead the formulation that Mr. Bush has adopted most recently: to establish a country that can sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself.” Wasn’t that precisely the situation that existed in Iraq before our invasion? Warren Nadel New York, Dec. 7, 2006 • To the Editor: Re “Welcome Political Cover” (editorial, Dec. 7): Before The Times and the American people embrace the findings of the Iraq Study Group, the following should be seriously considered: ¶The conclusions do not reflect the results of the Nov. 7 election, which clearly gave our elected officials a mandate to get out of Iraq post-haste, nor do they honor the wishes of the American people reflected in the polls, which sent the same message. ¶The conclusions do not honor the wishes of the Iraqi people, who overwhelmingly support the end of the ill-conceived occupation of their country. ¶The conclusions do not reflect the views of much of the leadership of the Democratic Party, elected to the majority of both houses of Congress, which called for a phased redeployment of American troops outside of Iraq within six months. While the media insist that the Iraq Study Group is nonpartisan (only to the extent that it is composed of five Republicans and five Democrats), the group did not pick up the mood of the country at all, nor did it adequately represent us in a supposedly representative democracy. Dennis Dalrymple New York, Dec. 7, 2006 • To the Editor: Your Dec. 7 editorial concerning the Iraq Study Group’s report is helpfully but sadly put in perspective by your front-page news analysis the same day, “Will It Work in the White House?” For it to work in the White House, President Bush must be able to admit, at least to himself, that his policy in Iraq, if it can be called that, has not worked and that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. He must also be able to accept the criticisms implicit in the report. Nothing in his six years in office has shown him capable of such honest introspection. The fact that the report does offer Mr. Bush a chance to gather a bipartisan consensus for change is a compliment to the report. But Mr. Bush, since being anointed president in 2000 by the Supreme Court and very narrowly winning an election in 2004, has acted like an emperor with a mandate to do as he sees fit. To Mr. Bush, bipartisan means having the support of his friend Tony Blair. Under the circumstances, the Iraq Study Group has delivered a decent and bipartisan report. One fears that Mr. Bush is too far out of touch with reality to use it to get the country out of the hole he has dug. Theodore S. Voelker Copake, N.Y., Dec. 7, 2006 • To the Editor: Your Dec. 7 front-page news analysis of the Iraq Study Group report describes the report’s nuanced “shaping” of the president’s thinking. You quote James A. Baker III, the group’s co-chairman, as saying President Bush is “conflicted” about Iraq, and you write that Republicans are waiting for clues about what Mr. Bush will do. On the day the report was released, 10 more American troops were killed in Iraq. The results of the November election left no doubt that the American people want to end the deployment and deaths of our troops in Iraq. Yet despite this clear message, our misguided foreign adventure continues to hang on the vicissitudes of an overwhelmingly unpopular president. The government was given a mandate to act. Whatever euphemisms it chooses to use, we need a short-term timetable for removing our combat troops from Iraq. Wendy Geringer Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006 • To the Editor: The Iraq Study Group’s call for diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria is a prudent recommendation that, if carried out by the Bush administration, will probably contribute to Iraq’s stability, as Iran is equally concerned about the spiraling sectarian-insurgency conflict, which may spill over into the country. In turn, such a dialogue may contribute to the resolution of the nuclear standoff with Iran, by improving the climate between the two countries, all the more reason for the Security Council to avoid hasty sanctions that could torpedo the proposed United States-Iranian dialogue on security in Iraq and the region. Kaveh Afrasiabi Cambridge, Mass., Dec. 7, 2006 The writer is a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. • To the Editor: Re “Bush Urges Shiite Leader to Support Premier” (news article, Dec. 5): The attitude of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a powerful Shiite leader in Iraq, toward the policies of President Bush portends benefits for the Shiites in Iraq that may well be harmful to our interests in the long run. Our military is engaged in hostilities daily in Iraq with Shiites and Sunnis. But most of our efforts are directed against the Sunnis. Attacks by Shiite militiamen and our military activity are draining the power of the Sunnis, and in effect we are taking sides and ensuring an eventual Shiite victory in a civil war. Negotiations with Saudi Arabia on this matter are imperative. Connell J. Maguire Riviera Beach, Fla., Dec. 5, 2006 The writer is a retired Navy captain.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
| ||
| ||
|
Saturday, December 09, 2006
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Friday, December 01, 2006
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, November 30, 2006
|
Dr. Eugene J. Carragee of Stanford called the risk of waiting with sciatica “if not extraordinarily small, at least off the radar screen
People with ruptured disks in their lower backs usually recover whether or not they have surgery, researchers are reporting today. The study, a large trial, found that surgery appeared to relieve pain more quickly but that most people recovered eventually and that there was no harm in waiting.
And that, surgeons said, is likely to change medical practice.
The study, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is the only large and well-designed trial to compare surgery for sciatica with waiting.
The study was controversial from the start, with many surgeons saying they knew that the operation worked and that it would be unethical for their patients to participate in such a study.
In the end, though, neither waiting nor surgery was a clear winner, and most patients could safely decide what to do based on personal preference and level of pain. Although many patients did not stay with their assigned treatment, most fared well with whatever treatment they had.
Patients who had surgery often reported immediate relief. But by three to six months, patients in both groups reported marked improvement.
After two years, about 70 percent of the patients in the two groups said they had a “major improvement” in their symptoms. No one who waited had serious consequences, and no one who had surgery had a disastrous result.
Many surgeons had long feared that waiting would cause severe harm, but those fears were proved unfounded.
“I think this will have an impact,” said Dr. Steven R. Garfin, chairman of the department of orthopedic surgery at the University of California, San Diego. “It says you don’t have to rush in for surgery. Time is usually your ally, not your enemy,” Dr. Garfin added.
As many as a million Americans suffer from sciatica, said Dr. James Weinstein, a professor of orthopedic surgery at Dartmouth who led the study. The condition is characterized by an often agonizing pain in the buttocks or leg or weakness in a leg.
It is caused when a ruptured disk impinges on the root of the sciatic nerve, which runs down the back of the leg. And an estimated 300,000 Americans a year have surgery to relieve the symptoms, Dr. Weinstein said.
Patients are often told that if they delay surgery they may risk permanent nerve damage, perhaps a weakened leg or even losing bowel or bladder control. But nothing like that occurred in the two-year study comparing surgery with waiting in nearly 2,000 patients.
The study did not include people who had just lower back pain, which can have a variety of causes. Nor did it include people with conditions that would require immediate surgery like losing bowel or bladder control.
Instead, they were typical of a vast majority of people with sciatica who are made miserable by searing pain. For such patients, fear that delaying an operation could be dangerous “was the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” said Dr. Eugene J. Carragee, professor of orthopedic surgery at Stanford.
Dr. Carragee said that he had never believed it himself, but that the concern was widespread among patients and doctors.
“The worry was not knowing,” he added. “If someone had a big herniated disk, can you just say, ‘Well, if it’s not bothering you that much, you can wait?’ It’s kind of like walking on eggshells. What if something terrible did happen?”
With the new results, it is clear that the risk of waiting “is, if not extraordinarily small, at least off the radar screen,” Dr. Carragee said.
The study involved 13 spine clinics in 11 states. All the participants had pain from herniated disks and leg pain. The patients were asked whether they would allow the researchers to decide their treatment at random. Those who did not have surgery generally received physical therapy, counseling and anti-inflammatory drugs.
In the end, the study could not provide definitive results on the best course of treatment because so many patients chose not to have the treatment that they had been randomly assigned.
About 40 percent of those assigned to surgery decided not to have it, often because their conditions improved while they awaited the operations. A third of patients assigned to wait decided to have operations, often because their pain was so bad that they could not endure it any longer.
Others asked not to be assigned at random and were followed to see what treatment they chose and how they fared.
The researchers are also conducting a separate analysis on the cost effectiveness of surgery compared with waiting. Although that analysis has not been published, Dr. Anna N. A. Tosteson of Dartmouth, an author of the study, said that Medicare paid a total of $5,425 for the operation and that private insurers might pay three to four times that.
Although the results answered one question, about the safety of waiting, they were also, in a sense, disappointing, said Dr. David R. Flum, a contributing editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association and an associate professor of surgery at the University of Washington.
“Everyone was hoping the study would show which was better,” Dr. Flum said.
“And everyone was surprised by the tremendous number of crossovers in both directions,” he added, referring to the large number of participants who changed from surgery to waiting and vice versa.
That muddied the data.
Sciatica tends to run in families and occurs when the soft gel-like material inside a spinal disk protrudes through the outer lining of the disk like a bubble on a bicycle tire. That compresses and inflames a nerve root that forms the sciatic nerve.
The resulting pain can feel like a burning fork in the buttocks, Dr. Weinstein said. Or it can be a searing pain down the back of a leg. The pain can be so intense that some people cannot walk. Some cannot sit. Some, Dr. Weinstein said, “can barely crawl.”
The operation is quick and generally effective, Dr. Garfin said. It involves gently pushing the compressed nerve root away from the herniated disk. Then the surgeon makes an incision in the disk and deflates it. The nerve returns to its normal position, the inflammation goes away, and the pain often disappears.
The Journal of the American Medical Association published two papers on the study, one reporting on the randomized trial and the other on the patients who chose not to be randomized. It also published editorials by Dr. Carragee and Dr. Flum.
The reason for all the attention, Dr. Flum explained, was that the study was large and well designed, that its authors had no conflicts of interest, and, “We can learn a lot.”
The message, in the end, Dr. Weinstein said, was that no matter which treatment a patient received, “nobody got worse.”
He added, “We never knew that until we did the study.”
|
![]() | November 19, 2006 Lives By GABE HUDSON I've gone to some pretty O.K. schools, but the one I'm most proud to have graduated from is the Marine Corps School of Infantry at Camp Pendleton, Calif. My Military Occupational Specialty was 0311 (rifleman), so after making it through boot camp and combat training, I went to the school of infantry, also known as S.O.I. They say that S.O.I. graduates (grunts or ground-pounders) have one of the youngest mortality rates of any school in history because thousands of alumni have gone on to die in armed conflict before the age of 25. And some young marines die at the school itself (including one while I was there — R.I.P.). Other marines commit suicide, get shot or go crazy and are discharged. The logic went that it was better for these marines to fall apart at S.O.I. than on the battlefield. At the time, this seemed like a brilliant pedagogical approach. I loved S.O.I., the intensity of it. The only thing I didn't love about S.O.I. were these two guys in my platoon whose nicknames were too offensive to mention here; I'll call them Meat and Potatoes. Meat was a black belt in karate, and Potatoes was some kind of college wrestling star who had failed out. They were very mean, very tough and probably evil. They fancied themselves a sort of demented comic duo. Meat and Potatoes would stroll up to some marines and with pure deadpan tell the sickest, nastiest jokes you ever heard. Meat told the straight line, and then Potatoes chimed in with the punch line. No one in my platoon ever laughed, but no one ever told Meat and Potatoes to shut up. This is because a couple of marines once told Meat and Potatoes to shut up, and Meat and Potatoes jumped them and beat them to a pulp. Back then, I was a 6-foot-4, 204-pound marine, and I hated Meat and Potatoes's guts. I was just waiting for the reason to tangle with them. One night when we were out in the field, we woke up to the sounds of marines shouting: "Formation! Formation! Double time!" We hustled out in front of our hooches, while other marines ran around with flashlights. This felt serious. Turned out one of the marines in my hooch — a nice guy named Jones — well, his M-16 had disappeared. Jones woke up, found his M-16 missing and immediately reported it to our platoon leader. Our platoon leader woke up our S.O.I. instructor, and our S.O.I. instructor woke up all the other instructors, until the entire company was standing at attention in front of their hooches. I'm not sure I can convey how incredibly screwed up it is to lose your M-16. For a marine, it's the moral equivalent of having sex with your mother. After a couple hours of searching, Meat and Potatoes finally admitted they had stolen Jones's M-16 while he was asleep. They had hidden the M-16 out in the woods, with a note that said: "THE ENEMY COULD KILL US WITH THIS." Meat and Potatoes wanted to teach Jones a lesson. He had left his M-16 outside his sleeping bag. Our S.O.I. instructors chewed our butts out, bent us and sent us back to rack out. I wanted to kill Meat and Potatoes. I had lost two of the three hours of sleep I was going to get that night, and it seemed as if two bullies had picked on the nice guy. I had seen the tears in Jones's eyes, and his pain only fueled my rage. So I waited in my sleeping bag for Meat and Potatoes to return to our hooch, where I planned on jumping them both. Back then, I used to say that I could beat down three guys at the same time, and on a couple of liberty weekends, I had gone out of my way to prove it. I knew Meat and Potatoes were tough, but I was going to put them in a world of hurt. I rehearsed my opening line in my mind, "Hey, guys, have I got a joke for you." And then I was going to smash my elbow into Potatoes's face. When Meat and Potatoes came through the door, I tensed, about to stand up. But to my surprise, I didn't do anything. On some base level I knew they were right. When you're a rifleman in the Marine Corps, your M-16 is your most cherished possession. You break your M-16 down and clean it every day. You sleep with it; you take it to the head; you never let it leave your person. I wrapped my own M-16's sling around my leg at night. We were training for combat. I mean, I didn't want to go to war with a marine who would hand his weapon over to the enemy so they could shoot me in my sleep. The next morning on the rifle range, Meat and Potatoes came over to a group of us with their M-16s slung over their shoulders. They started in with their normal comedy routine. As if nothing had happened. Meat told the straight line. Then Potatoes delivered the punch line. This was the sickest joke they had told yet — if you heard it, you might faint — but this time when Potatoes delivered the punch line, I started laughing like a lunatic. Not at the joke, but because I realized I had learned a valuable lesson about war. The guy you hate the most could be the one who saves your life. Gabe Hudson is the author of "Dear Mr. President," a collection of short stories about the first Persian Gulf war. |
I was lying in bed after a rather depressing night, listening to the birds twitter in the trees, when Jeeves shimmered into the room.
“What ho, Jeeves.”
“Good morning, sir.”
“What’s all this I hear about your heading up some Iraq Study Group? Have you been talking to my father again?”
“Might I suggest the blue suit today? Something about this November suggests blue.”
Sometimes Jeeves can be evasive, which is when I apply the old iron hand that we W.s are known for.
“Now, see here, Jeeves, I can handle this Iraq business myself.”
“Yes, sir. But, if I may, there does seem to be something of a clamor for an exit strategy.”
“Dash it, Jeeves, the only exit strategy is victory.”
“Yes, sir. So Dr. Kissinger keeps insisting. And yet, as the Bard would suggest, ripeness is all.”
“What are you talking about?”
“ ‘King Lear,’ sir. A play by the late Mr. Shakespeare.”
“Just spit it out.”
“As you may recall, sir, I had suggested replacing Mr. Rumsfeld before the election, rather than after.”
“Deuced good idea, Jeeves. See to it immediately. Walk him up the scaffold, and no blindfold. That’ll get us a few votes.”
We W.s are slow to anger, but, when the feeling comes, the ground around us trembles.
“If I may, sir?”
“What is it, Jeeves?”
“The election is over.”
“Oh. Dash it all, Jeeves, you might have told me.”
“I believe there was some mention of it in the newspapers.”
“Well, don’t be so mysterious. How’d we do? Another unqualified triumph?”
“Not as satisfactorily as one might have hoped, sir. One might even be tempted to say that we took rather a thumping.”
“Hmm. Wondered why there’ve been so many Democrats lurking about. Every time I look up from my desk, they’re tiptoeing about with tape measures. It’s deuced annoying, Jeeves. How’s a President supposed to concentrate?”
“I have spoken with the Secret Service about it, sir. I have asked them to limit Democratic visitors to no more than two per day.”
“That Pelosi woman. Sat there like a cobra. Froze my blood, Jeeves. Could hardly get up out of my chair.”
“I keenly regret it, sir. I shall ask the Secret Service to be on the lookout especially for her. Meanwhile, perhaps if you appealed to her maternal side? I believe the lady is a mother of five and a grandmother. Perhaps a tasteful arrangement of seasonal flowers, accompanied by an appropriate sentiment? ‘Every hyacinth the garden wears / dropped in her lap from some once lovely head.’ ”
“What are you going on about now?”
“A poem, sir, by a Mr. Khayyam. A Persian person.”
“Well, stop it. You’re making my head spin. And that Reid fellow who was with her—good Lord, he could give the Grim Reaper a run for his money. Where do the Democrats find these people, Jeeves? In a funeral parlor?”
“I believe the gentleman is from the state of Nevada, sir. The ‘Battle Born’ state, as the state flag has it. Admitted to the Union during the Civil War.”
“I tried to jolly him up by giving him one of my nicknames. You know how I like to crack the old ice by giving people nicknames.”
“I am acquainted with your tendency toward the spontaneous assignment of the fraternal sobriquet. Might I inquire just what you called him?”
“Cactus Butt.”
“Doubtless a reference to the flora of his natal environs. And was the future Senate Majority Leader amused, sir, by your jeu d’esprit?”
“He just stared at me. Deuced uncomfortable, let me tell you.”
“Perhaps the gentleman is not inclined to persiflage. But, if I may, sir, with respect to Iraq?”
“All right, then. Give it to me straight up.”
“Might I suggest, sir, a regional conference?”
“Dash it, Jeeves, we’re at war. You can’t go conferencing with bullets flying all over the place.”
“Indeed, sir. And yet if we were to invite, say, Iran and Syria and some of the other affected countries to sit down for what is, I believe, referred to as ‘networking,’ it might take some of the pressure off yourself?”
“You mean the sort of how-d’ye-do where everyone sits at one of those huge U-shaped tables and makes endless orations all day?”
“That would be the general notion, yes, sir.”
“Now, steady on, Jeeves. You know I hate those things. You sit there with an earphone, listening to interpreters jibber-jabber about how it’s all your fault. I’d rather take my chances playing Blinky with Cobra Woman and Cactus Butt.”
“You wouldn’t actually have to attend personally, sir. Indeed, I could represent you, if that would be agreeable.”
“I say, would you, Jeeves?”
“Certainly, sir. Indeed, sir, it is my impression that you have been working much too hard as it is. Might I suggest that you winter at the ranch in Crawford? I believe the climate there this time of year is thought to be salubrious.”
“But what if the Vice-President wants to come down and go quail-hunting?”
“I have taken the liberty of speaking with the Secret Service, sir, and have asked that they replace Mr. Cheney’s shotgun cartridges with blanks.”
“Jeeves, you’re a genius. Pack my things. We leave immediately.”
“Thank you, sir. I endeavor to give satisfaction.”
A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power? At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting "shorteners" on the wire—that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put "shorteners" on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.
The White House's concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. "They're afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war," a former senior intelligence official told me.
In late 1982, Edward P. Boland, a Democratic representative, introduced the first in a series of "Boland amendments," which limited the Reagan Administration's ability to support the Contras, who were working to overthrow Nicaragua's left-wing Sandinista government. The Boland restrictions led White House officials to orchestrate illegal fund-raising activities for the Contras, including the sale of American weapons, via Israel, to Iran. The result was the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-eighties. Cheney's story, according to the source, was his way of saying that, whatever a Democratic Congress might do next year to limit the President's authority, the Administration would find a way to work around it. (In response to a request for comment, the Vice-President's office said that it had no record of the discussion.)
In interviews, current and former Administration officials returned to one question: whether Cheney would be as influential in the last two years of George W. Bush's Presidency as he was in its first six. Cheney is emphatic about Iraq. In late October, he told Time, "I know what the President thinks," about Iraq. "I know what I think. And we're not looking for an exit strategy. We're looking for victory." He is equally clear that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran. "The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime," he told an Israeli lobbying group early this year. "And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
On November 8th, the day after the Republicans lost both the House and the Senate, Bush announced the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the nomination of his successor, Robert Gates, a former director of Central Intelligence. The move was widely seen as an acknowledgment that the Administration was paying a political price for the debacle in Iraq. Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group—headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman—which has been charged with examining new approaches to Iraq, and he has publicly urged for more than a year that the U.S. begin direct talks with Iran. President Bush's decision to turn to Gates was a sign of the White House's "desperation," a former high-level C.I.A. official, who worked with the White House after September 11th, told me. Cheney's relationship with Rumsfeld was among the closest inside the Administration, and Gates's nomination was seen by some Republicans as a clear signal that the Vice-President's influence in the White House could be challenged. The only reason Gates would take the job, after turning down an earlier offer to serve as the new Director of National Intelligence, the former high-level C.I.A. official said, was that "the President's father, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker"—former aides of the first President Bush—"piled on, and the President finally had to accept adult supervision."
Critical decisions will be made in the next few months, the former C.I.A. official said. "Bush has followed Cheney's advice for six years, and the story line will be: 'Will he continue to choose Cheney over his father?' We'll know soon." (The White House and the Pentagon declined to respond to detailed requests for comment about this article, other than to say that there were unspecified inaccuracies.)
A retired four-star general who worked closely with the first Bush Administration told me that the Gates nomination means that Scowcroft, Baker, the elder Bush, and his son "are saying that winning the election in 2008 is more important than the individual. The issue for them is how to preserve the Republican agenda. The Old Guard wants to isolate Cheney and give their girl, Condoleezza Rice"—the Secretary of State—"a chance to perform." The combination of Scowcroft, Baker, and the senior Bush working together is, the general added, "tough enough to take on Cheney. One guy can't do it."
Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush's first term, told me that he believed the Democratic election victory, followed by Rumsfeld's dismissal, meant that the Administration "has backed off," in terms of the pace of its planning for a military campaign against Iran. Gates and other decision-makers would now have more time to push for a diplomatic solution in Iran and deal with other, arguably more immediate issues. "Iraq is as bad as it looks, and Afghanistan is worse than it looks," Armitage said. "A year ago, the Taliban were fighting us in units of eight to twelve, and now they're sometimes in company-size, and even larger." Bombing Iran and expecting the Iranian public "to rise up" and overthrow the government, as some in the White House believe, Armitage added, "is a fool's errand."
"Iraq is the disaster we have to get rid of, and Iran is the disaster we have to avoid," Joseph Cirincione, the vice-president for national security at the liberal Center for American Progress, said. "Gates will be in favor of talking to Iran and listening to the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the neoconservatives are still there"—in the White House—"and still believe that chaos would be a small price for getting rid of the threat. The danger is that Gates could be the new Colin Powell—the one who opposes the policy but ends up briefing the Congress and publicly supporting it."
Other sources close to the Bush family said that the machinations behind Rumsfeld's resignation and the Gates nomination were complex, and the seeming triumph of the Old Guard may be illusory. The former senior intelligence official, who once worked closely with Gates and with the President's father, said that Bush and his immediate advisers in the White House understood by mid-October that Rumsfeld would have to resign if the result of the midterm election was a resounding defeat. Rumsfeld was involved in conversations about the timing of his departure with Cheney, Gates, and the President before the election, the former senior intelligence official said. Critics who asked why Rumsfeld wasn't fired earlier, a move that might have given the Republicans a boost, were missing the point. "A week before the election, the Republicans were saying that a Democratic victory was the seed of American retreat, and now Bush and Cheney are going to change their national-security policies?" the former senior intelligence official said. "Cheney knew this was coming. Dropping Rummy after the election looked like a conciliatory move—'You're right, Democrats. We got a new guy and we're looking at all the options. Nothing is ruled out.' " But the conciliatory gesture would not be accompanied by a significant change in policy; instead, the White House saw Gates as someone who would have the credibility to help it stay the course on Iran and Iraq. Gates would also be an asset before Congress. If the Administration needed to make the case that Iran's weapons program posed an imminent threat, Gates would be a better advocate than someone who had been associated with the flawed intelligence about Iraq. The former official said, "He's not the guy who told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he'll be taken seriously by Congress."
Once Gates is installed at the Pentagon, he will have to contend with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Rumsfeld legacy—and Dick Cheney. A former senior Bush Administration official, who has also worked with Gates, told me that Gates was well aware of the difficulties of his new job. He added that Gates would not simply endorse the Administration's policies and say, "with a flag waving, 'Go, go' "—especially at the cost of his own reputation. "He does not want to see thirty-five years of government service go out the window," the former official said. However, on the question of whether Gates would actively stand up to Cheney, the former official said, after a pause, "I don't know."
Another critical issue for Gates will be the Pentagon's expanding effort to conduct clandestine and covert intelligence missions overseas. Such activity has traditionally been the C.I.A.'s responsibility, but, as the result of a systematic push by Rumsfeld, military covert actions have been substantially increased. In the past six months, Israel and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as "part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran." (The Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Baluchi tribesmen, and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime's authority in northern and southeastern Iran.) The government consultant said that Israel is giving the Kurdish group "equipment and training." The group has also been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S." (An Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel was involved.)
Such activities, if they are considered military rather than intelligence operations, do not require congressional briefings. For a similar C.I.A. operation, the President would, by law, have to issue a formal finding that the mission was necessary, and the Administration would have to brief the senior leadership of the House and the Senate. The lack of such consultation annoyed some Democrats in Congress. This fall, I was told, Representative David Obey, of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee that finances classified military activity, pointedly asked, during a closed meeting of House and Senate members, whether "anyone has been briefing on the Administration's plan for military activity in Iran." The answer was no. (A spokesman for Obey confirmed this account.)
The Democratic victories this month led to a surge of calls for the Administration to begin direct talks with Iran, in part to get its help in settling the conflict in Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair broke ranks with President Bush after the election and declared that Iran should be offered "a clear strategic choice" that could include a "new partnership" with the West. But many in the White House and the Pentagon insist that getting tough with Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq. "It's a classic case of 'failure forward,'" a Pentagon consultant said. "They believe that by tipping over Iran they would recover their losses in Iraq—like doubling your bet. It would be an attempt to revive the concept of spreading democracy in the Middle East by creating one new model state."
The view that there is a nexus between Iran and Iraq has been endorsed by Condoleezza Rice, who said last month that Iran "does need to understand that it is not going to improve its own situation by stirring instability in Iraq," and by the President, who said, in August, that "Iran is backing armed groups in the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold" in Iraq. The government consultant told me, "More and more people see the weakening of Iran as the only way to save Iraq."
The consultant added that, for some advocates of military action, "the goal in Iran is not regime change but a strike that will send a signal that America still can accomplish its goals. Even if it does not destroy Iran's nuclear network, there are many who think that thirty-six hours of bombing is the only way to remind the Iranians of the very high cost of going forward with the bomb—and of supporting Moqtada al-Sadr and his pro-Iran element in Iraq." (Sadr, who commands a Shiite militia, has religious ties to Iran.)
In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. "Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office," he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives "need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."
The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President's staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many in Washington, Wurmser "believes that, so far, there's been no price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and intervention inside Iraq," the consultant said. But, unlike those in the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney's office "want to end the regime," the consultant said. "They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran."
The Administration's planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)
The C.I.A.'s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.
A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. The White House's dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. "They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. "They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission." The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency also challenged the C.I.A.'s analysis. "The D.I.A. is fighting the agency's conclusions, and disputing its approach," the former senior intelligence official said. Bush and Cheney, he added, can try to prevent the C.I.A. assessment from being incorporated into a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities, "but they can't stop the agency from putting it out for comment inside the intelligence community." The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But some in the White House, including in Cheney's office, had made just such an assumption—that "the lack of evidence means they must have it," the former official said.
Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, under which it is entitled to conduct nuclear research for peaceful purposes. Despite the offer of trade agreements and the prospect of military action, it defied a demand by the I.A.E.A. and the Security Council, earlier this year, that it stop enriching uranium—a process that can produce material for nuclear power plants as well as for weapons—and it has been unable, or unwilling, to account for traces of plutonium and highly enriched uranium that have been detected during I.A.E.A. inspections. The I.A.E.A. has complained about a lack of "transparency," although, like the C.I.A., it has not found unambiguous evidence of a secret weapons program.
Last week, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that Iran had made further progress in its enrichment research program, and said, "We know that some countries may not be pleased." He insisted that Iran was abiding by international agreements, but said, "Time is now completely on the side of the Iranian people." A diplomat in Vienna, where the I.A.E.A. has its headquarters, told me that the agency was skeptical of the claim, for technical reasons. But Ahmadinejad's defiant tone did nothing to diminish suspicions about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"There is no evidence of a large-scale covert enrichment program inside Iran," one involved European diplomat said. "But the Iranians would not have launched themselves into a very dangerous confrontation with the West on the basis of a weapons program that they no longer pursue. Their enrichment program makes sense only in terms of wanting nuclear weapons. It would be inconceivable if they weren't cheating to some degree. You don't need a covert program to be concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. We have enough information to be concerned without one. It's not a slam dunk, but it's close to it."
There are, however, other possible reasons for Iran's obstinacy. The nuclear program—peaceful or not—is a source of great national pride, and President Ahmadinejad's support for it has helped to propel him to enormous popularity. (Saddam Hussein created confusion for years, inside and outside his country, about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, in part to project an image of strength.) According to the former senior intelligence official, the C.I.A.'s assessment suggested that Iran might even see some benefits in a limited military strike—especially one that did not succeed in fully destroying its nuclear program—in that an attack might enhance its position in the Islamic world. "They learned that in the Iraqi experience, and relearned it in southern Lebanon," the former senior official said. In both cases, a more powerful military force had trouble achieving its military or political goals; in Lebanon, Israel's war against Hezbollah did not destroy the group's entire arsenal of rockets, and increased the popularity of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
The former senior intelligence official added that the C.I.A. assessment raised the possibility that an American attack on Iran could end up serving as a rallying point to unite Sunni and Shiite populations. "An American attack will paper over any differences in the Arab world, and we'll have Syrians, Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbollah fighting against us—and the Saudis and the Egyptians questioning their ties to the West. It's an analyst's worst nightmare—for the first time since the caliphate there will be common cause in the Middle East." (An Islamic caliphate ruled the Middle East for over six hundred years, until the thirteenth century.)
According to the Pentagon consultant, "The C.I.A.'s view is that, without more intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran's nuclear program. And a low-end campaign of subversion and sabotage would play into Iran's hands—bolstering support for the religious leadership and deepening anti-American Muslim rage."
The Pentagon consultant said that he and many of his colleagues in the military believe that Iran is intent on developing nuclear-weapons capability. But he added that the Bush Administration's options for dealing with that threat are diminished, because of a lack of good intelligence and also because "we've cried wolf" before.
As the C.I.A.'s assessment was making its way through the government, late this summer, current and former military officers and consultants told me, a new element suddenly emerged: intelligence from Israeli spies operating inside Iran claimed that Iran has developed and tested a trigger device for a nuclear bomb. The provenance and significance of the human intelligence, or HUMINT, are controversial. "The problem is that no one can verify it," the former senior intelligence official told me. "We don't know who the Israeli source is. The briefing says the Iranians are testing trigger mechanisms"—simulating a zero-yield nuclear explosion without any weapons-grade materials—"but there are no diagrams, no significant facts. Where is the test site? How often have they done it? How big is the warhead—a breadbox or a refrigerator? They don't have that." And yet, he said, the report was being used by White House hawks within the Administration to "prove the White House's theory that the Iranians are on track. And tests leave no radioactive track, which is why we can't find it." Still, he said, "The agency is standing its ground."
The Pentagon consultant, however, told me that he and other intelligence professionals believe that the Israeli intelligence should be taken more seriously. "We live in an era when national technical intelligence"—data from satellites and on-the-ground sensors—"will not get us what we need. HUMINT may not be hard evidence by that standard, but very often it's the best intelligence we can get." He added, with obvious exasperation, that within the intelligence community "we're going to be fighting over the quality of the information for the next year." One reason for the dispute, he said, was that the White House had asked to see the "raw"—the original, unanalyzed and unvetted—Israeli intelligence. Such "stovepiping" of intelligence had led to faulty conclusions about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction during the buildup to the 2003 Iraq war. "Many Presidents in the past have done the same thing," the consultant said, "but intelligence professionals are always aghast when Presidents ask for stuff in the raw. They see it as asking a second grader to read 'Ulysses.' "
HUMINT can be difficult to assess. Some of the most politically significant—and most inaccurate—intelligence about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction came from an operative, known as Curveball, who was initially supplied to the C.I.A. by German intelligence. But the Pentagon consultant insisted that, in this case, "the Israeli intelligence is apparently very strong." He said that the information about the trigger device had been buttressed by another form of highly classified data, known as MASINT, for "measuring and signature" intelligence. The Defense Intelligence Agency is the central processing and dissemination point for such intelligence, which includes radar, radio, nuclear, and electro-optical data. The consultant said that the MASINT indicated activities that "are not consistent with the programs" Iran has declared to the I.A.E.A. "The intelligence suggests far greater sophistication and more advanced development," the consultant said. "The indications don't make sense, unless they're farther along in some aspects of their nuclear-weapons program than we know."
In early 2004, John Bolton, who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control (he is now the United Nations Ambassador), privately conveyed to the I.A.E.A. suspicions that Iran was conducting research into the intricately timed detonation of conventional explosives needed to trigger a nuclear warhead at Parchin, a sensitive facility twenty miles southeast of Tehran that serves as the center of Iran's Defense Industries Organization. A wide array of chemical munitions and fuels, as well as advanced antitank and ground-to-air missiles, are manufactured there, and satellite imagery appeared to show a bunker suitable for testing very large explosions.
A senior diplomat in Vienna told me that, in response to the allegations, I.A.E.A. inspectors went to Parchin in November of 2005, after months of negotiation. An inspection team was allowed to single out a specific site at the base, and then was granted access to a few buildings there. "We found no evidence of nuclear materials," the diplomat said. The inspectors looked hard at an underground explosive-testing pit that, he said, "resembled what South Africa had when it developed its nuclear weapons," three decades ago. The pit could have been used for the kind of kinetic research needed to test a nuclear trigger. But, like so many military facilities with dual-use potential, "it also could be used for other things," such as testing fuel for rockets, which routinely takes place at Parchin. "The Iranians have demonstrated that they can enrich uranium," the diplomat added, "and trigger tests without nuclear yield can be done. But it's a very sophisticated process—it's also known as hydrodynamic testing—and only countries with suitably advanced nuclear testing facilities as well as the necessary scientific expertise can do it. I'd be very skeptical that Iran could do it."
Earlier this month, the allegations about Parchin reëmerged when Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest newspaper, reported that recent satellite imagery showed new "massive construction" at Parchin, suggesting an expansion of underground tunnels and chambers. The newspaper sharply criticized the I.A.E.A.'s inspection process and its director, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, for his insistence on "using very neutral wording for his findings and his conclusions."
Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a conservative think tank, told me that the "biggest moment" of tension has yet to arrive: "How does the United States keep an Israeli decision point—one that may come sooner than we want—from being reached?" Clawson noted that there is evidence that Iran has been slowed by technical problems in the construction and operation of two small centrifuge cascades, which are essential for the pilot production of enriched uranium. Both are now under I.A.E.A. supervision. "Why were they so slow in getting the second cascade up and running?" Clawson asked. "And why haven't they run the first one as much as they said they would? Do we have more time?
"Why talk about war?" he said. "We're not talking about going to war with North Korea or Venezuela. It's not necessarily the case that Iran has started a weapons program, and it's conceivable—just conceivable—that Iran does not have a nuclear-weapons program yet. We can slow them down—force them to reinvent the wheel—without bombing, especially if the international conditions get better."
Clawson added that Secretary of State Rice has "staked her reputation on diplomacy, and she will not risk her career without evidence. Her team is saying, 'What's the rush?' The President wants to solve the Iranian issue before leaving office, but he may have to say, 'Darn, I wish I could have solved it.' "
Earlier this year, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert created a task force to coördinate all the available intelligence on Iran. The task force, which is led by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, the head of the Israeli Air Force, reports directly to the Prime Minister. In late October, Olmert appointed Ephraim Sneh, a Labor Party member of the Knesset, to serve as Deputy Defense Minister. Sneh, who served previously in that position under Ehud Barak, has for years insisted that action be taken to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. In an interview this month with the Jerusalem Post, Sneh expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of diplomacy or international sanctions in curbing Iran:
The danger isn't as much Ahmadinejad's deciding to launch an attack but Israel's living under a dark cloud of fear from a leader committed to its destruction. . . . Most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with families, and Israelis who can live abroad will . . . I am afraid Ahmadinejad will be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That's why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs.
A similar message was delivered by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, in a speech in Los Angeles last week. "It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," he said, adding that there was "still time" to stop the Iranians.
The Pentagon consultant told me that, while there may be pressure from the Israelis, "they won't do anything on their own without our green light." That assurance, he said, "comes from the Cheney shop. It's Cheney himself who is saying, 'We're not going to leave you high and dry, but don't go without us.' " A senior European diplomat agreed: "For Israel, it is a question of life or death. The United States does not want to go into Iran, but, if Israel feels more and more cornered, there may be no other choice."
A nuclear-armed Iran would not only threaten Israel. It could trigger a strategic-arms race throughout the Middle East, as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—all led by Sunni governments—would be compelled to take steps to defend themselves. The Bush Administration, if it does take military action against Iran, would have support from Democrats as well as Republicans. Senators Hillary Clinton, of New York, and Evan Bayh, of Indiana, who are potential Democratic Presidential candidates, have warned that Iran cannot be permitted to build a bomb and that—as Clinton said earlier this year—"we cannot take any option off the table." Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has also endorsed this view. Last May, Olmert was given a rousing reception when he addressed a joint session of Congress and declared, "A nuclear Iran means a terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and die—the mass destruction of innocent human life. This challenge, which I believe is the test of our time, is one the West cannot afford to fail."
Despite such rhetoric, Leslie Gelb, a former State Department official who is a president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said he believes that, "when push comes to shove, the Israelis will have a hard time selling the idea that an Iranian nuclear capability is imminent. The military and the State Department will be flat against a preëmptive bombing campaign." Gelb said he hoped that Gates's appointment would add weight to America's most pressing issue—"to get some level of Iranian restraint inside Iraq. In the next year or two, we're much more likely to be negotiating with Iran than bombing it."
The Bush Administration remains publicly committed to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear impasse, and has been working with China, Russia, France, Germany, and Britain to get negotiations under way. So far, that effort has foundered; the most recent round of talks broke up early in November, amid growing disagreements with Russia and China about the necessity of imposing harsh United Nations sanctions on the Iranian regime. President Bush is adamant that Iran must stop all of its enrichment programs before any direct talks involving the United States can begin.
The senior European diplomat told me that the French President, Jacques Chirac, and President Bush met in New York on September 19th, as the new U.N. session was beginning, and agreed on what the French called the "Big Bang" approach to breaking the deadlock with Iran. A scenario was presented to Ali Larijani, the chief Iranian negotiator on nuclear issues. The Western delegation would sit down at a negotiating table with Iran. The diplomat told me, "We would say, 'We're beginning the negotiations without preconditions,' and the Iranians would respond, 'We will suspend.' Our side would register great satisfaction, and the Iranians would agree to accept I.A.E.A. inspection of their enrichment facilities. And then the West would announce, in return, that they would suspend any U.N. sanctions." The United States would not be at the table when the talks began but would join later. Larijani took the offer to Tehran; the answer, as relayed by Larijani, was no, the diplomat said. "We were trying to compromise, for all sides, but Ahmadinejad did not want to save face," the diplomat said. "The beautiful scenario has gone nowhere."
Last week, there was a heightened expectation that the Iraq Study Group would produce a set of recommendations that could win bipartisan approval and guide America out of the quagmire in Iraq. Sources with direct knowledge of the panel's proceedings have told me that the group, as of mid-November, had ruled out calling for an immediate and complete American withdrawal but would recommend focussing on the improved training of Iraqi forces and on redeploying American troops. In the most significant recommendation, Baker and Hamilton were expected to urge President Bush to do what he has thus far refused to do—bring Syria and Iran into a regional conference to help stabilize Iraq.
It is not clear whether the Administration will be receptive. In August, according to the former senior intelligence official, Rumsfeld asked the Joint Chiefs to quietly devise alternative plans for Iraq, to preëmpt new proposals, whether they come from the new Democratic majority or from the Iraq Study Group. "The option of last resort is to move American forces out of the cities and relocate them along the Syrian and Iranian border," the former official said. "Civilians would be hired to train the Iraqi police, with the eventual goal of separating the local police from the Iraqi military. The White House believes that if American troops stay in Iraq long enough—with enough troops—the bad guys will end up killing each other, and Iraqi citizens, fed up with internal strife, will come up with a solution. It'll take a long time to move the troops and train the police. It's a time line to infinity."
In a subsequent interview, the former senior Bush Administration official said that he had also been told that the Pentagon has been at work on a plan in Iraq that called for a military withdrawal from the major urban areas to a series of fortified bases near the borders. The working assumption was that, with the American troops gone from the most heavily populated places, the sectarian violence would "burn out." "The White House is saying it's going to stabilize," the former senior Administration official said, "but it may stabilize the wrong way."
One problem with the proposal that the Administration enlist Iran in reaching a settlement of the conflict in Iraq is that it's not clear that Iran would be interested, especially if the goal is to help the Bush Administration extricate itself from a bad situation.
"Iran is emerging as a dominant power in the Middle East," I was told by a Middle East expert and former senior Administration official. "With a nuclear program, and an ability to interfere throughout the region, it's basically calling the shots. Why should they coöperate with us over Iraq?" He recounted a recent meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who challenged Bush's right to tell Iran that it could not enrich uranium. "Why doesn't America stop enriching uranium?" the Iranian President asked. He laughed, and added, "We'll enrich it for you and sell it to you at a fifty-per-cent discount."
My Week with Wilma
Or, Nature's Leaf Blower in the State of Denial
by Ralph T. Castle
In the dim yellow glow from a Wal-Mart oil lamp, I sit at my kitchen table, cursing the State of Florida while I struggle to enter a few more keystrokes on a water-damaged laptop with a dying battery. My cat, Eddie, is having a fine time, prowling around outside in the total darkness of a landscape where all street lights are dead within a radius of 75 miles. I would join him for a stroll under the stars, except that the county police are liable to throw me in jail for violating the 7:30 curfew.
According to news estimates I am one of 3.5 million people in South Florida currently deprived of electricity. When Hurricane Wilma blew through a couple of days ago, she ravaged the landscape and scattered power lines like a petulant kid kicking over sand castles on a beach. This of course is what hurricanes normally do, but Wilma's range has astonished even seasoned veterans of the so-called Sunshine State. The power outage extends all the way from Miami, in the south, to Fort Pierce, on the way to Orlando. By my calculation the affected area encompasses 30,000 square miles.
My neighbors speak with first-name familiarity about bygone hurricanes, in the same way that they might chat about legendary bad guests who broke porcelain ornaments or left coffee stains on the carpet. When they talk of Wilma, though, their voices drop to a tone of subdued respect. No one has seen this scale of damage before, and behind each conversation lies an ominous subtext. The public servants of Florida are not known for their ability to think outside the box--or inside it, for that matter. My neighbors are starting to wonder exactly how our elected representatives will bootstrap us out of this mess.
Lack of electricity for me personally is not such a big deal. In my all-electric home I have no hot water, I can't cook anything, I have no refrigeration, no air conditioning, and of course no lights, but I do have my oil lamp, a low-wattage LED flashlight, and three weeks' supply of food. I am not worried about myself. What concerns me is everyone else. Something tells me that in my low-rent neighborhood, a typical Floridian's idea of hurricane preparedness is to buy half-a-dozen candles, a few big bags of potato chips, and a case of Bud Light.
Some canned food is available from a few grocery stores that have reopened using emergency generators, but already their shelves are half empty, and in any case their customers are running out of money. Since almost all workplaces are closed, employees are not receiving paychecks--and even if they did, all the banks and ATMs have shut down, while credit cards are worthless, because they cannot be authorized.
I have a couple-thousand dollars in cash, but when I mentioned this before the storm, people looked at me as if I were crazy. Florida, after all, has become notorious for generous bailouts of its "disaster victims," as the reckless optimists who choose to live on this precarious sandbar choose to describe themselves. Since federally funded handouts have become a happy fact of life, who needs extra cash?
Indeed, some food distribution centers have started giving away military rations, but these centers are widely scattered, and my neighbors may run out of gasoline to visit them, because people have been cruising around, admiring the hurricane damage as if they're on vacation. When their cars run dry, they will be unable to refuel, because the pumps in gas stations cannot function without electricity. Nor will anyone be able to ride the buses, since the buses have stopped running and are not expected to resume for the indefinite future.
Add it all up, and I see some folks getting hungry a couple of days from now. They may not deal with this in a very mature manner. Floridians tend to assume that in their feelgood semitropical paradise, they are exempt from adversity. In the words of "Frankli Speeking," who wrote a letter on this topic to the online edition of the Palm Beach Post: ". . . after being warned for days on end, people don't have the sense to stock up on a few days worth of food . . . and old people who opt to live in high rise condos love to complain nonstop that FEMA didn't come in limos to personally rescue and escort them out of their buildings and they must eat MREs instead of being served more succulent fare, like steak, lobster, shrimp!"
I have indeed noticed a widespread sense of entitlement, here, as Floridians expect someone to take care of them, such as the local police, or the Social Security Administration, or their insurance company, or the National Guard, or George Bush's brother, or--well, someone! This time, however, they may be out of luck.
Emergency generators that sustain hospitals, fire departments, and sewage pumping stations will need more fuel in the very near future. Likewise, emergency vehicles. This brings us to the real sticking point: The broken supply chain. Port Everglades, where giant ocean-going tankers normally unload fuel into equally giant storage tanks, is paralyzed because it, too, lacks electricity. Nor can fuel come in via railroad, because crossing gates and flashing lights are out of action, allowing those who are absent-minded or generally out to lunch (a sizable fraction of the population) to stray upon the tracks without customary warnings from bells, barriers, and beacons. This risk is perceived as being so severe, trains will not run until all the protective systems at every railroad crossing have been brought back online.
Of course the highways are open from the north, but since the power outage is so extensive, I'm thinking that truckers may be unwilling to drive very far into our area in case they will be unable to refuel to get back out again.
As I sit here with my stash of kerosene, batteries, bottled water, and food bars, I am already making contingency plans. First I will park my car close to an obstacle such as a concrete wall, to prevent opportunists from siphoning fuel from the gas tank. Then I may double-bag some reserve stocks of food and bury them in my back yard. This sounds melodramatic, but in a society of deluded whiners waiting for Santa Claus to deliver the supplies which they feel they deserve, a self-sufficient person with a stockpile of resources is not necessarily in a strong position. On the contrary: He becomes a target.
One Week Earlier
The first time I saw hurricane Wilma on the National Weather Service web site, she was making an impromptu visit to Cancun, scouring sand from beaches and punching windows out of high-rise hotels. This of course was just a playful dalliance, a brief rehearsal for the main event.
As I studied Wilma's predicted trajectory I saw that it would bring her across the Gulf of Mexico and over the Florida peninsular from the west to the east, exiting the east coast at a point about 10 miles below Lake Okeechobee--in other words, precisely where I have been living since I accepted a full-time job here, just over a year ago. Forecasters predicted that Wilma would lose some energy along the way, but I didn't believe that. Something about Wilma convinced me that she was going to be aggressive, mean, and nasty.
As the days passed, Wilma's schedule slipped a few hours but my neighborhood remained on the center line of her probable path. On Sunday night, in anticipation of her predicted arrival around 9 AM the next morning, I made final preparations. I refilled my car and my pickup truck at a local gas station, and was surprised to find no one waiting in line. Maybe my neighbors had already topped off their tanks, or--more likely--they weren't taking Wilma as seriously as I was.
I drove back to my house, stepped out into the driveway, and looked up to see a few puffs of cloud drifting lazily across a night sky softly backlit from streetlights below. As palm fronds stirred in a light breeze, it seemed inconceivable that Wilma was at that very moment inflicting random acts of mindless destruction on the opposite coast, 200 miles away.
I walked into the house that I rent, which was built around 1930, entirely from wood, and is located about four feet above sea level, 500 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway. Last year I lived in a modern, hurricane-safe apartment complex; the main reason I moved to my present location was so that my cat could have back yards to roam in. I was beginning to regret that decision.
I started loading possessions into big plastic tubs and sealing the lids with cling-wrap. My friend Mathew, who works with me and also rents a room in the house, started packing up his computer equipment, his stereo, and his oversize inflatable bed. (For reasons which I have never understood, Mathew always sleeps on an inflatable bed. He doesn't own a normal bed.) We loaded everything into the back of my pickup truck and drove to the research lab where we work. I conjectured that this would be a safer location, since it is constructed from concrete. Better still, in keeping with the notorious hyperbole of Florida real estate developers, it is located on "Skyline Drive," so named because it is situated a dozen additional feet above sea level. Mathew set up his bed in an empty office on the ground floor while I hauled my plastic containers to the second floor and placed them beneath some desks, where I thought they should be safe from flooding and somewhat protected if the roof collapsed or was ripped away.
Then I went back to my house and placed my less essential possessions in more plastic tubs, which I stacked on the dining table, again in the hope that this would safeguard them from flood waters. I took my cat, Eddie, back to the lab and test-started our 5500-watt generator, which would be sufficient to power a freezer and two refrigerators. The refrigerators were loaded with cold turkey, orange juice, bread, cheese, and yogurt, in addition to various expensive chemical compounds connected with our lab work.
Mathew shut himself in his office, where he inflated his bed. I camped out on the upper floor with my cat, and plugged in my laptop to recharge it. I figured we were prepared, more or less.
Monday
After sleeping fitfully I woke around 7 AM and heard the steel roof creaking gently as air howled around the building. One thing should be understood about hurricanes: They are boring. When you look out of the window, the landscape is a dim, dark gray, and it stays that way for a long time. Trees thrash their branches, rain races past almost horizontally, and nothing else happens for many hours.
Around 8 AM the power went out. Since most of our 8,000-square-feet facility is windowless, I grabbed my flashlight, found my way downstairs, and started the generator in our large warehouse area. In addition to the refrigerators, the generator was hooked up to a powerful extractor fan which I hoped would keep carbon monoxide to a tolerable level. Then I went to the front lobby and sat on the couch (which we maintain for visitors) while I watched the wind blowing across the parking lot. The metal roof made ominous banging and scraping sounds, probably as debris was hurled upon it. My cat stared at the weather without much enthusiasm, and went to sleep.
After a while I stepped outside. The fine rain was driven with such force, my face felt as if it were being sandblasted. I came back inside and suggested to Mathew that we should go for a drive. "Okay," he said, so we got into my pickup truck and cruised into the storm.
We were totally alone. I saw no other vehicles anywhere. Dark clouds were racing low overhead, power lines and phone wires were writhing, branches were being torn loose from trees, and flurries of leaves were piling up like snow drifts. My little S-10 pickup truck rocked in the gusts. I was careful to keep a good distance away from any tall objects that might fall and crush the vehicle like a bug.
After we returned to the office, the wind quietened and the light brightened slightly as the eye of the storm moved over us, around 1 PM. An hour later, as the back side of the hurricane spiral moved in, the wind reversed direction. This was bad news since it was now blasting directly against the large windows of our modern building. When I placed my palm against a window I could feel it flexing in and out at least an inch each way, and the motion was taking its toll on the rubber gasket between the glass and the aluminum frame. Bit by bit, I saw the glass nudging the rubber out of its channel at the top of the window. Finally the rubber came completely free and one entire edge of the glass was unsupported, leaving a quarter-inch gap where the wind came howling in, spewing dirt and dead leaves across our nice new carpet.
Wilma's malevolent intention was now obvious: To get rid of the rubber gasket around the remaining three edges of the window and hurl the entire sheet of glass, measuring about four feet by ten, into the front lobby. I was determined that this should not happen, because if the wind penetrated the building it would wreak havoc, tossing the ceiling tiles up from their aluminum grid, spraying water everywhere, and stirring pens, papers, pencils, and paperclips until everything would look as if it had passed through a blender.
I ran into the workshop at the back and found a cordless hand-held circular saw. I grabbed it, and some lumber, and ran back to the lobby. Already the left gasket was half way out, and the unsupported top corner of the big window was bending inward to a horrifying extent. I had never realized glass could bend so much without breaking. The deflection at the corner was as much as three inches. I hesitated before approaching it--but big ground-floor windows are made from toughened glass that shatters harmlessly into popcorn, right?
I pushed against the window with all my strength, and managed to return it to its frame. Of course, it didn't want to stay there. I wedged a two-by-four between the glass and an opposite wall, and the window flexed and knocked the wood out of place. Meanwhile of course everything was still a monotonous dark gray outside, and the wind was still howling and trees were still thrashing their branches. Leaves, old newspapers, aluminum cans, cardboard boxes, and a detached stop sign went hurtling across the parking lot.
I managed to wedge the wood temporarily, while Mathew watched uneasily from the hallway. "I don't think this is a good idea," he said. Probably he was right, but I had fallen into that dangerously obsessive mental state in which the purpose of a task becomes obscured by the drama of the task itself. I was like Wile E. Coyote in pursuit of the Road Runner.
The glass was now flexing ominously around the point where the wood pressed against it. I ran back to the warehouse, found a good piece of plywood measuring about two feet by eight, and went back to the lobby. Trying to keep calm, I sawed the end of a two-by-four to make it exactly the right length. The saw kept jamming. It had barely enough battery power to complete the cut, and I knew that if I judged it wrong, I wouldn't have a second chance. I forced the plywood against the glass, then pushed the two-by-four between the plywood and the opposite wall. Good; it was a precise fit.
The influx of wind-driven debris was now impeded, but I wasn't sure my two-by-four would remain in place, so I ran back to the warehouse yet again, grabbed a cordless electric screwdriver and some three-inch wood screws, and returned to the lobby, where I screwed the wood to the wall and added some additional triangular braces.
Finally the lobby seemed secure. "You know," Mathew said to me, "my mother used to work in a glass factory. She once told me that they would ship out defective toughened glass along with the good stuff. So, it doesn't always shatter into popcorn."
Maybe he should have told me that earlier. Oh well. I went to check upstairs, and found that the windows there were starting to lose their own rubber seals along their top edges. Still, the wind was slackening slightly, and I judged that the windows were safe for the time being at least, and maybe for the rest of the storm.
The vinyl floor tiles were covered in water. I went downstairs, found a plastic dustpan and a mop bucket, and returned to the upper floor, where I started scooping water into the dustpan and dumping it in the bucket. I probably picked up about six or seven gallons this way (it was a giant, industrial-size mop bucket).
An hour or so later, as the wind diminished further, the water stopped coming in, and I decided to take a break. I was concerned that if I waited too long the local police would want to take control of the streets for the usual dubious reasons--to preserve order, direct traffic, protect us from ourselves, and so forth. If I wanted free access to interesting areas of devastation I should move as quickly as possible. Once again, I set out with Mathew in the pickup truck.
The back side of the hurricane had been far more ferocious than the front side. A massive pile of tree branches now blocked the road, but it was a divided highway, and the other side was clear, so I bumped over the median and proceeded the wrong way for a block till I came to an intersection. The traffic signals had fallen from their suspending cables and were smashed on the asphalt. Wires dangled, snaking lazily to and fro. I detoured around them, although the chance that they might still carry electricity seemed negligible.
I drove toward the ocean, reached Highway 1, and saw an amazing spectacle: Sturdy wooden poles that had supported high-voltage power lines were literally snapped in half. The power lines were now lying in people's front yards. Some residents from a nearby trailer park were standing and staring at the mess. I stopped and took some pictures.
"Hey man," said a skinny black guy who seemed slightly hostile, "what you doing taking pictures? These people just lost their homes."
Indeed, people who live in mobile homes in Florida should expect to lose them during a hurricane. Still, I sensed it might be unwise to express my feelings on this topic. "I just want to document this terrible disaster," I said.
He considered that. "It is terrible," he said. "You got any gasoline in your truck?"
"Only water. Two gallons of water." I took a step backward.
"No gasoline at all, huh?"
"Only water," I repeated. I opened the door of the truck, and we drove away.
I continued north on Highway 1 until I reached the street where I live. I was pleased to find no flooding; evidently the hurricane had passed through so quickly, little rainfall had accumulated. Two large trees in my neighbor's front yard had been thrown down across my front yard, but neither of them had hit my house. Palm fronds were scattered everywhere, and I found miscellaneous debris: Asphalt shingles that seemed to have come all the way from a house at the other end of the block, a detached lightweight aluminum porch that I had never seen before, and (lying near my front door) an under-ripe coconut.
The house itself was amazingly unscathed. The roof showed no sign of damage. No water had penetrated any of the rooms. This really pissed me off; I could have saved myself the trouble of packing and moving my possessions to the lab.
I drove back to the lab with Mathew, and at the rear of the building I saw something that surprised me more than anything else I had seen. A large dumpster, with a capacity of about eight cubic yards, had been thrown onto its side. That, to me, was impressive: A wind strong enough to knock over a dumpster.
In front of the building, the parking lot and the landscaped areas had been swept clean as if a giant leaf blower had come along. Wilma had taken all the loose stuff lying around, such as candy-bar wrappers, twigs, plastic soda bottles, and old newspapers, and had swept the detritus into big neat piles.
While Mathew went out for a longer sight-seeing trip in his own car, I scooped more water from the upstairs floor. When he returned, we ate some of our supplies and reviewed our options. "How much gasoline do we have?" Mathew asked.
"Enough to keep the generator running for several days," I said.
"Are you sure?" he asked.
I went to check, and was stunned to discover that two of our six five-gallon gas cans were empty. How had that happened? I tried to reconstruct the sequence of hurricane preparations, and failed. Maybe our office manager, Kelly, had used the gas in her car--but that seemed vanishingly unlikely. I had to face the fact that somehow, I had screwed up. I had been overconfident because hurricane Ivan, a year ago, had knocked out the power for just one day. Having sampled Wilma's work, I was sure, now, that our current outage would last much longer.
"We're going to have to find more gas," I said.
"Where?" Mathew asked.
"Well, if I drive far enough tomorrow, I should be able to go beyond the hurricane zone and find a functioning gas station."
After some more discussion, we agreed that Mathew would continue living in the office, mainly because if he deflated his inflatable bed, he wouldn't have any power, back at the house, to reinflate it. Also, at the lab, he would have access to our stash of food in the refrigerator. The only snag was that he didn't like the generator being located inside the warehouse area; he was afraid of carbon monoxide seeping into the office areas of the building and killing him in his sleep. All right, I agreed to move the generator outside--but how could we prevent it from being stolen? I remembered my oversize New York City bicycle chain, back at the house, so I drove off to get it.
By this time it was quite dark. All the streetlights were out, of course, and none of the traffic signals was working. Only a few cars were on the street. As I drove across the I-95 overpass, I saw a police cruiser pulling someone over ahead of me--and another, stopping a car on the other side of the street. Then I saw a large electric sign: MANDATORY CURFEW 7:30 - 5:00. When I checked my watch, I was dismayed to find that the time was almost 8:30.
I managed to reach my street without being hassled by the police, and went to one of my neighbors. When he came to the door, I asked him if the curfew was serious.
"It was on the TV news," he said, looking at me as if I was an idiot.
Well, I never watch local TV news, because I think it's stupid and irritating. I don't even own a TV capable of picking up over-the-air broadcasts. I get all my news online or from CNN--under normal circumstances.
"You're sure the curfew is for real?" I asked my neighbor.
"They've been throwing people in jail," he told me.
Evidently I should not attempt to drive back to the office to secure the generator. I paused outside a moment, surveying the neighborhood. Some windows were dimly lit with the faint glow from candles, flashlights, and oil lamps. There was no other source of light. Because of the curfew, no traffic was passing the intersection at the end of the street. No trains were moving down the railroad just beyond. My residential neighborhood was as dark and dead as a one-horse western town.
I retreated into my house, lit my oil lamp, ate a can of beans--and discovered that rainwater had run into the keyboard of my Windows xp laptop, because I had left it unprotected while it was recharging on the upper floor at the lab. Damn! When I switched it on, it beeped incessantly and did nothing. Eventually I managed to get it started by hammering its keyboard with my fist while it went through its boot sequence. Then I plugged in a USB Mac keyboard, which it somehow recognized, although it still didn't respond to the backspace key.
As I made notes--without backspacing--and pondered my situation, I realized I was feeling nonspecifically anxious. Normally I like to think of myself as being self-sufficient. Many times I have been totally alone in the Northern Arizona wilderness, and have enjoyed being disconnected from civilization. Similarly I have always enjoyed reading disaster novels by authors such as J. G. Ballard (The Drowned World) or John Christopher (The Day of the Triffids). I've been seduced by the vision of an isolated survivor wandering through a wasteland. So, what was bothering me now?
The answer was obvious. I was not an isolated survivor. I was surrounded by millions of people who seemed civilized yet possessed the destructive potential that has been endemic in large crowds throughout history. I imagined the entire southern end of Florida sliding into a state of anarchy, like a giant version of the New Orleans Superdome. I didn't think this would happen, necessarily, but I had a visceral sense that it _could_ happen, if Florida was mismanaged as badly as Mississippi--which seemed entirely plausible.
Tuesday
Since I had gone to sleep early, I found myself wide awake at 6 AM. Well, the curfew was over, so I grabbed the chain to secure the generator, and drove over to the lab.
At the rear of the building I found that Mathew had wedged the generator into a corner, using one of our vehicles to pin it against the wall, to prevent theft. This was ingenious but unwise. The generator was in such a tight space, it was now inhaling its own fumes. I went into the facility to tell Mathew that I had to reconfigure his setup. Along the way I found an extension cord from the generator, leading under the door of the office in which he had established his inflatable bed. I heard a fan whirring inside the office, which was unsurprising, because Mathew can never sleep unless he hears the sound of a fan running.
Hm, best not to waken him. I turned around, tripped over the extension cord, and heard the fan come crashing down inside his room.
"Who is it?" I heard him shout through the closed door. "I have a gun!"
Hastily, I identified myself.
"That was very dangerous," he told me a few minutes later, after he unlocked his door.
"It was only dangerous because you were acting like a paranoid wacko," I told him.
"I'm not paranoid. That generator, outside, is like an advertisement telling people we have something to steal."
Perhaps he was right. There was no way of knowing. The whole situation was so freakishly unprecedented, no one could say what was likely, what was far-fetched, what was sane, or what was crazy. Were the cops over-reacting, enforcing a 7:30 curfew? Was Mathew over-reacting, brandishing a handgun? I didn't have enough information or experience to answer these questions.
After I repositioned the generator in a way that allowed it to breathe, Mathew showed me what he had done during the previous evening. He had moved the couch from the entrance lobby into the chem lab, where he had set up a TV and a lamp, wired with more extension cords to the generator. It was like the scene in the shopping mall in Dawn of the Dead, where the survivors establish a refuge in an area upstairs from the zombies.
"Details like this make life worth living," Mathew said.
Personally it gave me the creeps, but I had to admit, his attitude was more positive than mine. "So what did you learn from the TV? Has power been restored at Port Everglades?"
"They didn't say anything about that."
I felt myself becoming irritated. "Of course not! They never tell you anything useful. They just show you pictures of annihilated mobile homes and obese losers pissing and moaning about FEMA. It's so terrible, a strong wind ruined their lives, and no one is doing anything about it. What a bunch of ingrates."
"So what are _you_ going to do?" Mathew asked.
"I'll have to do some driving, I guess." I wondered how I could discover the real extent of the area affected by the hurricane. Would the local police know? Would anyone know? Two days ago I had been able to sit down at a keyboard and learn almost any fact about anything, just by clicking icons on a screen. Now I felt as info-deprived as a third-world peasant. I should have bought a short-wave radio, I realized. Still, there was no point in playing the shoulda-coulda-woulda game.
"I'll stay here and do some work around the facility," Mathew said.
"What kind of work?"
"Well, there's a lot of cleaning to do, and things should be put away on shelves--"
He was right, of course: We might as well take advantage of the time in a useful and productive manner. On the other hand I felt as if he was planning to start scrubbing the deck of the Titanic just after it had hit the iceberg.
At 9 AM Kelly, our office manager, arrived with a battery-powered radio. Against my better judgment we listened to a local station. The coverage was abysmal. The anchorman had no news; he urged listeners to call and tell _him_ some news. "If you have a gas station that's up and running in your neighborhood, be sure to let us know!" he said in that hearty, barrel-chested voice shared by news anchors everywhere in America.
The radio did supply phone numbers for local disaster assistance, and for FEMA, and my cell phone was still working, probably because many cell towers are powered by propane-fuelled generators, which I hoped would last for a couple of weeks at least. I called a shelter, and the number was busy. I called FEMA and got through fairly quickly to someone who appeared to be out-of-state. "I want to know which areas of Florida still have electricity," I said.
"We don't have that information," the woman told me, and hung up.
I called directory assistance and asked for the number of any Home Depot in the Orlando area. When I got through to the store, someone told me they had no gas cans, and no generators either. "You'd have to go north of Jacksonville to find any," the man said.
After that, I got the number of a Texaco station in Orlando, and called them. "We only do repairs, we don't sell gas," said the person who answered the phone. "But the convenience store next door has a lot of gas."
Well, that was encouraging. "All right," I said to Kelly, "let's go for a drive."
We emptied the remaining cans into the generator and into the tank of my truck. I used a ratchet strap to secure the cans near the tailgate of the truck, and we started north on Skyline Drive. Local firefighters were out, winching fallen branches off the asphalt, but I didn't see any attempt, yet, at electrical repair.
We passed a house with a sheriff's pickup truck outside. I parked and knocked on the door of the house, and a guy in uniform, looking around 25, opened up. I asked him if we should go north or south in our quest for gas stations which were still supplied with electricity.
"Miami seems to have been hit pretty bad," he said, although he didn't cite a source for this information.
"What about further north?"
"I drove in from the northern county line, at Port Lucie. Everything was dead."
"That's about twenty miles, right? Maybe we have to go further."
He shrugged. "Good luck."
There was a sense of unreality about the whole thing. Aside from some fallen tree branches and piles of debris, nothing looked much different, yet here we were, in one of the most inaccessible locations in America, lacking the two most essential forms of energy, with no clue about how or when they would be restored, and no clear idea of what might happen if they weren't.
We drove to my house and I grabbed some food bars and water. My pickup truck has 185,000 miles on it, and I didn't necessarily trust it to bring us back, even if we did find gasoline. During the years when I lived in the Northern Arizona wilderness I had learned never to set out without a couple gallons of water and some emergency food.
Next I stopped at the local Town Hall. The access road to the police department was partially blocked with fallen branches. Inside the darkened building, a young dispatcher seemed authoritatively sure that Miami was a disaster area. I decided to believe him. We would go north.
By this time a lot of traffic was on the streets. People had no jobs to go to, and they were just cruising around, enjoying themselves. I imagined the conversations inside the cars: "Wow, look what happened to that K-Mart sign! Hey, look at the palm tree that blew over on top of that guy's car! Ha ha, I bet he wishes he hadn't left it there! You think he had insurance?"
We decided to head west to the Florida Turnpike, which has gas stations at intervals along its entire length. I would simply continue driving till we reached a station that was open for business.
Getting to the turnpike, though, was a problem. We found ourselves in a major traffic jam, and I wondered if everyone else was pursuing the same goal as ourselves. I found this hard to believe, because it seemed contrary to the manana mentality which prevails in Florida. The locals were still in a festive mood; they wouldn't start getting seriously worried for at least another day or two.
Sure enough we discovered that the traffic backup had been created by simple human indecision. Where traffic signals were dead, post-hurricane ettiquette dictated that each intersection should be treated as a four-way stop, but Florida drivers have never caught on to the rule about yielding to the person on your right. They were hesitating, waiting for each other to go. This was the entire cause of the problem.
After a while we reached the turnpike, where I was relieved to find that the traffic was very light. We cruised at a steady 75. The sunlight was golden, and the air was uncharacteristically cool and dry. We saw a man in a large mowing machine, trimming grass beside the turnpike. Further along, we saw construction crews doing highway maintenance. Crisis? What crisis? So long as these public employees had diesel in their tanks, they would continue performing their assigned tasks as zealously as the Energizer Bunny. But what would they do when the diesel ran dry? That was the big question.
For many miles we saw trees stripped bare of leaves, and skeletal wooden structures that had supported billboards. All highway signs were damaged, either bent or totally flattened. I remembered seeing bent highway signs a year ago, in the previous hurricane season. Evidently the bent signs had been replaced with new signs that had been no stronger than the old ones. Why was there no learning process, here? Maybe the state actually benefited from the federal aid that it received to replace bent signs on an annual basis.
After about fifty miles, the traffic started to bunch up. There was a turnpike service island a mile or so ahead--and here was the tail end of the line of cars waiting for gas. As traffic slowed to a crawl, I saw a state trooper on the shoulder of the highway. I rolled down my window. "How far do we have to go to find electricity?" I shouted.
The trooper was a woman, sitting on the trunk of her car, sipping iced tea from a big transparent plastic mug. She eyed me with contempt. This was nothing personal; I sensed that she viewed the entire world with contempt.
"This is a gas line, sir," she said. The "sir" was spoken almost sarcastically.
"I understand that. I want to know how far I go to find a town with electricity."
"I can't tell you that." She made it sound like classified information. She looked away, refusing to deal with me any further.
"Protect and serve," I muttered, as we pulled out and went past the line of cars.
The line stretched for about three-quarters of a mile. I imagined waiting in it for most of the day. Would we be allowed to fill all six of our five-gallon cans? I imagined backlash from others who wanted their share. Something about an emergency situation automatically seemed to deactivate the normal consensual principles of commerce. In a market economy, each business may set its prices freely in response to supply and demand--right? But what would happen now, if a gas station followed that principle? Outraged consumers would accuse it of "price gouging." I wondered what that really meant. Maybe the reflex to ration a scarce commodity is part of an evolutionary pattern. When a species feels threatened, it moves instinctively to share resources. Something like that.
"You know, we have to make a decision fairly soon." I told Kelly. "This truck can go maybe 200 miles on a full tank. When we get to 100 miles, we have to decide whether to turn back--or whether to take a chance on finding fuel farther on."
"We turn back," she said firmly.
I wasn't so sure about that, but I said nothing.
After a while, we took an exit--and found two gas stations near the highway open for business. This was encouraging: The power was on, here. Still, the lines of cars were impossibly long.
We continued farther north and took the next exit, signed to Fort Pierce. We were now 75 miles north of our lab in Delray Beach. At this exit I found half-a-dozen gas stations, and more lines of cars, but the lines were shorter. I added myself to a line at a Mobil station, and we waited for fifteen minutes or so. The line moved impossibly slowly, and I realized that even in a situation like this, Floridians were incapable of proceeding with all due haste. Grumpy retirees were squinting at the gas pumps, putting their credit cards in the wrong way around, and getting agitated in cases where a car's filler pipe was on the opposite side to the pump. Some people were taking additional time to go inside, pay cash, come back outside, pump fuel, and then go back inside for their change.
"I can't deal with this," I told Kelly, as I pulled out of the line.
"No, you're crazy!" she said.
I've never had much patience for waiting in lines. Also I felt sure that if we drove farther we'd have a better chance. Sure enough, a couple miles down the road we found a little four-pump gas station on a back street with only half-a-dozen people waiting. After ten minutes we were able to fill all six of our cans.
This created a strong feeling of relief. "Next stop, Wal-Mart," I said. We had passed one on our way to the gas station, and when I went back to it, I found that it was open for business. The bright lights and the noise of cash registers were a breath of life, wiping away the awful deadness that had surrounded us farther south. I'd never realized how much I love electricity.
I bought an inverter, so that I could recharge my defective laptop from the outlet in my truck. I also picked up two loaves of bread and two pounds of cold turkey, since our generator would be sustaining our refrigerators for at least a few more days with the fuel that I had obtained.
We went back to I-95 and headed for home. Every four or five miles we passed cars that had been abandoned on the shoulder, apparently because they had run out of fuel. Each of them had been left at an angle, pointing away from the highway, like fallen arrows.
Back at the lab we found Mathew looking very pleased with himself. "I washed the entire warehouse floor," he said.
"I'm going to take my radio, now," Kelly said. It was almost 5 PM; quitting time.
"Did you get any useful information by listening to the radio?" I asked Mathew.
"Well--" He hesitated. "You know, they have a lot of people calling in who are, let's say, not very smart. Like, there was this lady who was worried because she had heard that she should boil water before drinking it. The man on the radio said, surely she must have some bottled water. She said, yes, she had two weeks' supply of bottled water. But she was worried because she didn't have any way to boil it."
I wondered what it is about the state of Florida that seems to attract people like that.
I drove home, well ahead of the 7:30 curfew. I still didn't quite believe that the cops were throwing people in jail for being out late, but this was a theory that I had little interest in verifying personally. In my dark kitchen I ate another can of beans, some nuts, and some raisins, and then stepped outside into my back yard. Some of my neighbors were running generators, presumably to keep their kids pacified with DVDs and satellite TV. The night was noisy with the droning of small gasoline engines, and I wondered how long that would last. Then I looked up at the sky and saw something I had never seen in Florida before: Bright stars scattered against total blackness. The absence of street lights, in such a vast area of the state, had taken away the soft backlighting that I had seen on the night before Wilma moved in.
I looked to the south, and then to the north. The sky was utterly dark in both directions. If I had been in an airplane above the peninsular, it would have looked as featureless as the ocean around it.
Wednesday
The next morning, at the lab, Mathew told me what he had gleaned from another evening of watching broadcast TV. "A few gas stations around here have opened. They're using generators to power the pumps. But you can only buy $20 worth of gas."
Once again I noted the spontaneous reflex to ration a scarce resource. In this case it almost made sense, since the gas stations were just using up the remaining fuel in their underground tanks, and trying to distribute it as widely as possible. But what about the supply chain? "Anything about Port Everglades?" I asked. This was still the key to the whole situation.
"I don't think so."
I went to refuel our generator. None of our neighbors, in our industrial park, had generators; their businesses were still closed on this third day after the storm.
The generator had consumed more than five gallons of the gas that I had trucked back here from Fort Pierce. I decided to take an empty can and see if I could refill it locally. This would provide an opportunity to assess the mood of my fellow citizens. If their don't-worry-be-happy Florida mindset had begun to go sour, I wanted to know about it.
I was keeping my car in reserve, fully fuelled and ready to make a run north if things turned ugly. Moreover I had moved the car from my home to the lab and had parked it inside our warehouse. Just to be really, _really_ safe, I had placed my Dr. Hook lock on the steering wheel and an additional lock around the brake pedal.
Mathew said he was thinking of painting the warehouse floor, since he had washed it yesterday. This was too much for me to contemplate, so I took my truck in search of fuel.
When I reached Highway 1, near the broken power poles, I found a line of cars parked at the curb, with people sitting in them. Could this possibly be a gas line? The nearest gas station was a mile up the road. I continued driving, and counted the cars as I passed them. By the time I reached the gas station, I had counted 161 cars. This truly boggled my mind. Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that an average Floridian would require 3 minutes to pump and pay for $20 worth of gas (a highly optimistic estimate, in my opinion). If I joined the line, I'd be waiting for six hours. I could drive to Fort Pierce and back, twice, in that amount of time.
But then I realized: The people in this gas line couldn't do what I had done. They had already used so much of their gas, they were now trapped in the disaster area, and--better still--the $20 refuelling limit guaranteed that they would remain here. This knowledge made me happy. If I did decide to make a run north, the highways should be relatively empty.
At the gas station, two police cruisers had blocked all but one entrance, and the cops were standing around with their thumbs tucked in the belts, making sure no one tried to jump the line. Only one pump was serving cars, under the control of an attendant, presumably to enforce the $20 limit. A second attendant was working another pump, supplying people who had walked to the station carrying cans by hand.
I parked my truck up the street, grabbed my own gas can, and walked back, trying to count the number of people who had come there on foot. Around sixty were standing in line, and I noticed them eyeing me carefully as I approached. Already I could see some basic social codes emerging in this new era of scarcity. If you walked briskly, carrying empty cans toward a gas station, while seeming to ignore the line of people waiting, this was a highly provocative act. Conversely, if your body language indicated that your gas cans were full, you would attract meditative, envious stares. As for the cans themselves, they had become as valuable as cigarette packs inside a jail. In fact the whole situation reminded me of a jail, with the cops metering out resources and everyone waiting to do what they were told, before they were locked into their homes by the 7:30 curfew.
Since I live in a small white enclave on the edge of a large low-income neighborhood, most of the people in the line were black. They didn't seem to share any of my somber thoughts, and it occurred to me that many of them had been waiting in lines of one kind or another and following instructions from state and county employees for most of their lives. By contrast the white people in the line were irritable and humorless. A tall man who looked like a stockbroker or a lawyer started timing the gas-dispensing ritual at the station. He figured that people on foot were being served faster than people in cars, but it still took two-and-a-half minutes to complete each sale. I counted gas cans in the line ahead of me, more carefully this time, and found more than 100.
"Attention!" It was a cop shouting through a bullhorn. "This station will close one hour from now. Repeat, one hour before this station closes. Anyone still in line at that time will not be served."
I tried to imagine how this scene would play out. Someone would be the last person to get gas, and the person behind him would find that he had waited two or three hours for nothing. That seemed like a recipe for trouble. Wouldn't it be smarter for the cops to establish an arbitrary break point in the line right now, so that everyone beyond that point could quit wasting their time and go home? Maybe so, but either way, it wasn't my concern, because there was no way I could reach the front of the line within the next hour. I went back to my truck and drove away, back toward the lab.
Along the road I passed another lengthy line of cars, and realized they were waiting for free handouts from a disaster center. A sign outside the center said, ICE AND WATER. Here was another thing to boggle my mind. Only three days into the post-hurricane period, and people were running out of water. Even more mysterious, they were so desperate for ice, they were willing to wait for it for hours on end. What were they going to use it for? Were they trying to preserve hamburger meat and TV dinners, or did they just want cold beer?
I often feel baffled by everyday aspects of life that other people take for granted, but this situation was especially mysterious. Why ice? And why was it being given away for free? The people who were waiting would normally pay for water to be supplied through pipes to their homes. They would own a refrigerator to make ice, and they would pay for electricity to run it. Why should they stop paying now? It didn't make sense to me.
Well, I still had my own gasoline problem to deal with, since our generator was turning out to be such a thirsty beast. I used my cell phone to call some random numbers in the area around Fort Pierce. "I'm sorry to bother you, I live in Delray Beach, and we still don't have much gasoline here. Is there a shortage where you live?"
People sounded wary, and said that the lines of cars had started getting longer outside gas stations, probably because people like me were coming up there to refuel. Still, it wasn't a major problem--yet.
Tomorrow, I would make another trip. I felt stupid for owning only six cans, instead of twelve or maybe twenty. I was self-sufficient compared with many of my neighbors, but by my own standards, I was hopelessly unprepared. Once again I told myself not to get into the shoulda-woulda-coulda game.
On my way back home, I stopped at my closest neighbor's house and told him I would be going on a gas run tomorrow. I asked if there was anything he needed.
"Ice," he said.
I really wanted to know what he would use it for; but somehow I didn't feel it would be polite for me to ask.
Thursday
I walked out of the house around 8 AM and found that a new line of cars had already formed along the highway at the end of my street, waiting for the gas station to open. I went for a short walk around the block, noticed a newspaper vending machine outside a restaurant, and saw that the paper had today's date on it. Maybe the Palm Beach Post would be more content-rich than local radio and TV.
The front page was full of the usual human-interest stories. No doubt about it, tragic misfortune was a sure-fire way to sell newspapers. Below the fold I found a picture of a man who complained that raw sewage was bubbling up in his back yard. Apparently the emergency generators that powered the sewage pumps were beginning to break down and/or run out of fuel. A county official was quoted as saying, defensively, there was no way they could possibly have enough generators to run all the pumps at once. They were moving the generators around from one pump to the next.
I turned to the inner pages--and finally found something useful. Port Everglades had reopened. Trucks were loading gasoline for delivery to gas stations. Only one snag: Three trucks which Palm Beach County had paid to go for diesel fuel had taken it away to Miami, instead of bringing it back to Palm Beach.
The trucking company denied this. A spokesperson said that the story was bizarre and ridiculous--which seemed right to me, except that Florida is perpetually afflicted by events that seem bizarre and ridiculous. Anyway, the County was vowing to send a police escort with the next three trucks, to make sure they didn't abscond. One way or another, the generators that were running the sewage pumps would be refuelled.
This was reassuring. Now, if electricity could be restored to the gas stations--and perhaps some grocery stores, banks, and ATMs--the worst would be over.
I checked another news story, in which a spokesperson from Florida Power and Light predicted a reconnection time ranging from one to four weeks. I wondered again about my neighbors' stocks of food. Could they last for another week or two? It still seemed an open question.
I dumped the newspaper and drove over to the lab, where Mathew said he wanted to join me, this time, in my quest for fuel. He had already bagged his dirty laundry in case we had time to visit a working laundromat.
"Can't you just wear dirty clothes?" I asked him.
"Clean clothes are the kind of thing that makes life worth living," he said.
"And why are we stacking ice chests on the truck?"
"I plan to bring back a lot of perishable food. Hamburger meat, for instance."
I didn't understand why he couldn't eat canned beans, nuts, raisins, and food bars for the indefinite future, perhaps with a few vitamin pills to prevent scurvy. It certainly wouldn't bother me. What _would_ bother me was the prospect of sitting in the truck, waiting for him to go shopping. Still, in an emergency, we have to be tolerant of each person's quirks. Or at least, we have to pretend to be tolerant.
Before we left I toured the facility. I noticed that more extension cords had proliferated during the night. "You do realize, the more power you draw, the more fuel we use," I said.
"Well, sure, but bright lights--"
"--Are the kind of thing that make life worth living. Okay, but what's this?" I followed an extension cord into the utility room that contained our large electric water heater. Stuffed between the heater and the wall I found six heating pads, of the type you might use to ease a muscle pain. "You know," I said, as I dragged out the heating pads, "I don't think this is going to make the water hot."
"It could warm it slightly," Mathew said.
"Have you noticed any warming trend?"
"Well, not yet."
Trying to be tactful about it, I disconnected the heating pads. We emptied our remaining gas cans into the generator, Mathew's car, and my pickup truck. As we backed the truck out into the parking lot, I was amazed to see a UPS van stopping outside.
I stopped and signed for a package from the driver. "You guys have your own stash of fuel, I suppose," I said to him.
"Not for much longer," he said, without smiling.
I realized something that had never been clear to me from all the disaster novels I had read. When society starts to fall apart, there's a lag time. During that period of latency, before the disaster bites hard, natural human inertia causes most patterns to persist unchanged. Just like the crews trimming grass and doing highway repairs along the turnpike, the UPS driver was going to continue his routines so long as he had enough fuel to do so. I recalled that even in New Orleans, a whole week had passed before things started getting dangerous.
We cruised north, through the same hurricane-ravaged landscape that I remembered from two days ago. This time when we exited at Fort Pierce, the gas lines were much longer. We continued another ten miles, to Vero Beach. Human habitation here was relatively sparse along the coast, and of course development is prohibited inland, to preserve the wetlands in the Everglades. I wasn't sure how many gas stations I would find.
As it turned out, a cluster beside the Interstate at the Vero Beach exit were open for business. I pulled into line outside a truck stop and asked Mathew to check what was happening by the pumps. He came back with the news that a $140 limit was being enforced. Why $140? What sort of arbitrary number was that? Well, it didn't matter; we could fill all six cans for about $100 at everyday prices, and prices still were at an everyday level, to avoid the deadly accusation of "gouging."
What sort of a world is it, I wondered, where swamps are renamed as "wetlands" to make them more socially acceptable, yet the honorable economic practice of seeking to maximize a profit is renamed "gouging," so that it sounds like a despicable act of personal violence? Who is in control of these language mutations, anyway? Special-interest groups in conjunction with the media, no doubt. As a former journalist myself, I am well aware that journalism really is primarily written by knee-jerk Democrats--and not especially smart ones, at that. Of course it would be even less tolerable if it were written by knee-jerk Republicans, but that's a separate issue.
Our wait for gas lasted far longer than I could have believed possible, because we had unwittingly chosen perhaps the last gas station in America with pumps that didn't accept credit cards. When we reached the front of the line I had to go inside and wait in the convenience store behind people buying candy, cigarettes, beer, and sodas. A large bearded man who looked like a Vietnam vet was behind the counter, taking his time. "I dunno why they say there's a gas shortage. Ain't no gas shortage here," he said. Meanwhile a very fat black woman was working beside him, restocking a display of Marlboros, one pack at a time.
I gave him my credit card and asked for $100 of regular unleaded. He took my card and kept it beside his register. Five minutes later, all our cans were filled, and I had to go back inside the store and wait all over again, to sign the credit card charge slip. The large woman behind the counter was now chatting in a cheerful, mindless way with a man buying a 20-ounce bottle of Sprite for $1.15. I was able to remember these details, because I had so much time in which to observe them.
When the formalities were over I was more than ready to head for home. I had to get back before the curfew, and I had to feed my cat. I was concerned that heavy traffic could slow us down, or my aging truck could malfunction, leaving us stranded. Mathew, however, seemed totally carefree. "Let's get a hot meal," he said.
We ate a bad lunch in an Appleby's where a local woman at the next table described her own power outage the previous year, when Vero Beach had been hit by one hurricane or another. She said she had been without power for four weeks and without water for two months. Still, she continued to live here. I wondered what it would take to get her to move. A year without power? A tsunami? A total embargo on federal disaster aid?
After lunch, Mathew seemed in much better spirits, while I of course was feeling much worse, since I despise the ritual of wasting time in a bad restaurant. Only one thing is worse, and that, of course, is wasting time shopping.
Wearily, I drove to Sam's Club. I parked under a tree in the far corner of the lot, while Mathew went and did what he had to do. I lay down on the asphalt with my head on the curb, and tried to zone out. I told myself not to think about the truck breaking down or my cat being locked out of the house and possibly starving to death. Everything would be all right. Yet the social dislocation had undermined my usual equilibrium. I was still questioning everything, because I was still in a situation without precedents. I felt the presence of millions of people as potential adversaries or competitors for resources.
Finally my cell phone rang, and Mathew said he was outside the store, waiting for me to pick him up. When I got there I found him with a barbecue grill and a propane tank, "For my hamburger meat," he explained, as he dumped four pounds of dead cow into one of the ice chests, along with copious quantities of ice. Glumly, I tied the propane tank onto the bed of my pickup truck with a nylon ratchet strap. Propane and gasoline: What a great combination! I reflected that I should drive as fast as possible on the way home, to reduce the risk of someone rear-ending us and consuming us in a fireball. On the other hand, fast driving would increase the risk of a tire blowing out, since we were now carrying a lot more than the truck's rated capacity.
Mathew added a new TV (supposedly, smaller and less of a power drain than the one already at the office), many bags of junk food, and a lot more stuff that I don't even remember. I kept thinking about Dawn of the Dead, one of my all-time favorite movies, and the acquisitive impulses of the refugees in the shopping mall. Maybe, I thought, buying things is a kind of survival reflex.
Finally we headed for home. As the sun set on this fourth day after the hurricane, I looked ahead to my darkened home without much enthusiasm. "I wish I could get the hell out of here," I remarked to Mathew.
"Why don't you?" he said. "I don't mind taking care of the lab, now that I have the stuff I need."
I thought about that. "Is my impatience bothering you?"
"I think you should take a good long break," he said, sounding as if he was trying to be tactful.
We made it back to the lab without any truck problems, and unloaded all his goodies. I drove home and decided to take Mathew's advice. I called a couple of airlines, and was able to book a flight out of Palm Beach International, a folsky little airport with absurd delusions of importance. Still, Air Tran would allow me to bring my cat without having to get a health certificate--which was fortunate, since all the veterinary offices would still be closed. The repair crews had restored electricity to many railroad crossings, but almost all homes and businesses were still without power.
Now that I knew I would be escaping from South Florida, I indulged myself by turning up the wick of my oil lamp. No longer did I have to meter my supply of kerosene.
Friday
I drove to the airport, where the long-term parking lot turned out to be closed, for no apparent reason. Perhaps the machines issuing time-stamped tickets were still not working. With great difficulty I followed cryptic signs to a remote area which was being used for parking. Here I found other people who seemed just as eager to get the hell out of Florida as I was.
Three hours later, I was walking off the plane and into Terminal 3 at Newark. I found myself transplanted abruptly into one of the largest concentrations of people in the world. Florida barely seemed to exist anymore. The New York-New Jersey metropolitan area was humming with activity, embedded in its immensely complex network of supply lines and communications links, all enabled by the miraculous cooperative enterprise known as commerce.
The system looked robust to me, because a natural disaster is vanishingly unlikely in this part of the world. Still, I had lost some of my confidence. I saw more vividly, now, that any concentration of human beings is just one week away from social breakdown if vital resources are totally withdrawn and help does not arrive. In retrospect, I believe such a breakdown almost happened in some areas of South Florida. I have always understood this type of danger intellectually, but now I felt it viscerally. The learning process had not been pleasant, but the education was valuable.
Much Later
I stayed in New York for three days before returning to Florida. Power was restored to my home nine days after the hurricane, and to our research lab two days after that. Our DSL, of course, required electricity in addition to a phone line, but once the power was back, our Internet access restored itself. We shut down our 5500-watt generator, which had run for almost two weeks without interruption. The incessant hammering noise of its poorly silenced engine had been driving us mad, but the generator did its job. None of our refrigerated supplies was lost.
Three weeks after Wilma, some of the traffic signals are still dead. Broken power poles have been tilted back upright with makeshift splints that look as if a child had engineered them, but one way or another, almost everyone's electricity has been reconnected.
A phone repair man came to the house today, to restore a line that had been blown down. I chatted with him for a while, and asked how Bell South could possibly pay for the repair of all the damage. Would the rates go up?
"No, we're not allowed to raise rates," he said. "The FCC won't let us."
"So, who pays?"
He shrugged. "The company pays."
Of course this explanation was hopelessly incomplete. If a company can't increase its local rates to repair damage in a high-risk location, presumably it must petition the FCC to raise all rates equally. This means that those who have endangered themselves by their decision to live in a hazardous area will be subsidized by others. The prudent will pay for the imprudent, whether they like it or not. By this logic, if I wanted to live on the Moon, I should expect my fellow citizens to pay for my supply of oxygen.
I don't want to hammer this topic to the point of tedium, but the absence of economic sense is incomprehensible to me. Our entire system depends on capitalist economics, yet when people experience the slightest breath of misfortune, they clamor to be excepted from capitalism. Worse still, every journalist and legislator participates in this charade. No one dares to suggest that individuals should pay their own way.
I see only one possible answer to the Florida entitlement syndrome. Sooner or later we may expect rising ocean temperatures to initiate something a little more extreme than Wilma. I'm imagining a category 5 hurricane that comes up from Cuba, gaining momentum as it crosses the Keys and starts eating into the culturally unevolved eyesore known as Miami. From here it proceeds directly north, along a line exactly parallel with the coast, cutting a swathe like a giant Weed-Eater. All the boring, overpriced, tile-roofed, beige-walled suburban enclaves will be dismantled and dumped into their adjacent ornamental lakes. Pastel-pink and aquamarin
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
November 10, 2006
LONDON — She reclines on her side, naked, back turned, glancing into a mirror. Pearly flesh sinks luxuriantly into a gray satin bedsheet; it had been a deep mauve, before the color faded, which accounts for the pinkish reflections still cast on her inner thigh, ankle and buttock.
Her expression is ambiguous, the features half cast in shadow, catching our eye but blurred by a dim light, by the old mirror and by all the soft, veiled edges in the picture. It's the stripper principle: show less, leave more to the imagination. There isn't a sexier image in art. Perfect beauty, Velázquez implies, eludes strict definition.
The "Rokeby Venus," as it is called, has been joined at the National Gallery here by 45 other paintings — nearly half his work — for what is being advertised as the first major Velázquez retrospective in Britain. Who cares? Velázquez is the last artist to need hype.
The Metropolitan Museum's Velázquez show some years ago, like this one, was said to be the best that could be managed, absent works like "Las Meninas" and "The Spinners," which don't travel from Madrid. Youthful struggles with perspective and a few stilted, sullen portraits from the artist's middle years pad an affair here that, at its worst, comforts us in the knowledge that even Velázquez had his bad days.
There are a dozen or more masterpieces on a par with the "Venus" — head-shaking, stupefying paintings in that cool, effortless, ruthless way that Velázquez is great. I'm thinking of the portrait of the Infante Felipe Próspero, stuffed into a pinafore and a dress with bells; of the Infanta Margarita, an even more divine child; "Aesop," baggy-eyed, a sage; and the "Riding School." Like Zorro, with a few flicks of the brush Velázquez materializes perfect little portraits of the king and queen on a distant balcony. The writer Ortega y Gasset got it right. Velázquez's work, he said, "isn't art; it is life perpetuated."
If these pictures don't enthrall you, and make you weigh a trans-Atlantic lark, then no art will. The other day I scoured part of the show with David Hockney, who ventured that Velázquez must have used optical aids like a camera obscura. I nodded and smiled. Looking at Velázquez, lesser artists (which means everyone else, no offense to Mr. Hockney) may naturally want to ascribe the vast gulf between them and him to smoke and mirrors.
There is, in fact, something almost paranormal and unnerving about how his art implicates us, the way Venus does, with her eyes half-meeting ours as if in the very instant that we notice her. She seems suddenly to come alive. This has to do with Velázquez's uncanny grasp of not just what we see but how we see. A full-length portrait of Philip IV, pale, impassive and luminous, minus the notorious Hapsburg jaw and homely features, wraps the king in a sleeveless jacket and knee-length breeches embroidered in silver.
It's not the greatest portrait. But notice how the silver makes floral patterns glint against plush, purplish velvet. From a few feet away, the effect bedazzles. Then, close up, the patterns dissolve into seemingly random slashes, dots and swirls. They make an abstraction of swift, loose paint whose eloquence can't be held in the mind's eye simultaneously with the floral decoration.
Step up, step back. The illusion comes and goes. An assistant in Velázquez's studio painted a similar silvered fabric in a different portrait. The show's catalog reproduces an enlarged detail of that picture; its dogged precision results not in sharper focus but in crushing boredom. Somehow Velázquez decoded the mystery of how forms coalesce at a distance, then register in our consciousness as pure brushwork when seen nearer in.
The brushwork is never virtuosic for virtuosity's sake, by the way. It's never superfluous, always economical, in service to lucid description, releasing endorphins by reiterating the basic conjuring trick of painting. You might even say that Modern art, fixated on abstraction and issues of perception, largely rests on this single aspect of Velázquez's achievement.
The retrospective is without bells or whistles. Pictures are accompanied only by title and date. A palm-sized pamphlet, handed to visitors, contains descriptions of each painting, letting people read what and where they choose. No scrums of craning necks grappling before distracting wall texts. The idea should be universally copied.
And there's natural light: in lieu of the cramped basement in the modern Sainsbury Wing, built for special exhibitions, the show partly displaces the National Gallery's permanent collection by taking over a suite of handsome, skylighted rooms in the old building. Velázquez painted in natural light. His art hums in it. The gallery will have a hard time justifying Sainsbury for another large old master painting exhibition after this.
The show tracks the arc from Seville, where Diego Rodriguez de Silva Velázquez was born in 1599 and apprenticed with the painter Francisco Pacheco. Clearly prodigious, he soon moved to Philip's court in Madrid, where Rubens recommended a trip to Italy in 1629, for an immersion in Titian and Veronese, the turning point in Velázquez's life.
As a tyro he was desperate to impress, jury-rigging spatial and lighting effects before mastering a mood that was at once urbane and insolent. Wooden figures gave way to increasingly grave and human ones, like the old woman cooking eggs. Glorying in the bravado of depicting egg whites poaching in boiled water and sunshine glinting differently off ceramic bowl, pestle, mortar and flesh, this picture rises above its self-satisfaction by virtue of the woman's expression, somber and sacramental. As completely as any painter, Velázquez captured body language: how people point, tilt their heads, signal emotion — and he learned how to convey these signals minimally, coolly, without affectation. Every fool and beggar suddenly becomes a king in his art.
Cool, effortless and ruthless. You see it in the bandy-legged dwarf Francisco Lezcano, playmate to the child prince Baltasar Carlos. Sprawled, at what looks like the mouth of a cave, before a sunny landscape, Lezcano stares down at us, mouth slack, his face unfocused. (Velázquez manages this effect by painting one side of the face nearly asleep, the other alert.) Shuffling a pack of cards, Lezcano is thuggish, watchful. He's clearly nobody's fool.
In "Mars," a black comedy, the god of war, middle-aged and stringy, in a loincloth, slumps, with head on fist. Wearing a handlebar mustache and a helmet that's way too big, he's a '70s porn star on a break between scenes.
As Ortega y Gasset said, it's life perpetuated — but truth to life is not the same as reality. About "Venus," the painter Lucian Freud once pointed out how, anatomically speaking, her crooked right arm makes no sense, her torso stretches like Silly Putty, and her reflection is out of proportion in the mirror. "It's completely wrong, it bypasses reason, yet it works as art," he said, iterating a basic tenet of illusion. Painterly artifice, he added, depends on "an artist's ability to convey feelings that aren't necessarily ones the artist has himself; otherwise, the most remarkable artists would also be the most virtuous and extraordinary people."
Sadly, true. We know that Velázquez endlessly maneuvered for status, emulating Rubens's social stardom by painting less and less, and instead cultivated his roles as royal decorator, housekeeper, curator and courtier. As such, he died a great success, in 1660, the king having visited at his bedside. Genius and humanity in art, Velázquez reminds us, may have nothing necessarily to do with elevated character, which I suppose might be some consolation at a time when the art world is so drunk with money and shallow values.
If only somebody today painted half as magnificently as Velázquez.
"Velázquez" continues through Jan. 21 at the National Gallery in London;
nationalgallery.org.uk
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | |||
![]() | The "Rokeby Venus" (1647-51) is one of 46 paintings by Velázquez, almost half his total output, currently on view at the National Gallery in London. Portrait of a prince: Velázquez's "Baltasar Carlos on Horseback" (1634-35). |
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
![]() |
|
"The Waterseller of Seville" (circa 1617-1623) The Wellington Collection, Apsley House London
| |||||
"Apollo at the Forge of Vulcan" (1630) Infanta Marìa Teresa" (circa 1652-1653) |
![]() |
David Chelsea
|
Recent Comments