Daniel Pipes lowers the bar

Daniel "We need a strongman" Pipes explains what the real definition of success in Iraq should be:

I believe the U.S. goal in Iraq should be more narrowly restricted to protecting American interests. I hope the Iraqi population benefits from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and can make a fresh start, while I reject the rehabilitation of Iraq as the standard by which to judge the American venture there.

The American military machine is not an instrument for social work, nor for remaking the world. It is, rather, the primary means by which Americans protect themselves from external violent threats. The U.S. goal cannot be a free Iraq, but an Iraq that does not endanger Americans.

Let's see, we have established that Pipes doesn't care about the human rights record of a strongman or for the ideals of democracy in nation building, and that he considers the only reasonable standard for success being Iraq NOT posing a threat to our interests. In other words, Pipes now argues we should never have invaded Iraq, just bought off Saddam.

Can we accuse him of giving aid and comfort to the enemy? The warbloggers who took such great umbrage at Ted Kennedy's comparison to Vietnam on those grounds have a credibility deficit until they do.

live by the sword, die by the sword

I'll admit to being all over the pessimism-optimism axis on the issue of Muqtada Sadr and the threat he poses to both eventual Iraqi liberty and the fate of the holy sites in Najaf. But Juan Cole has reported a real reason to hope:

Some teachers in the Najaf seminaries called upon radical young cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to leave the shrine of Imam Ali, just as the Imam Husayn had departed from Mecca (when he led his uprising against the Umayyad empire in 680-81). This according to the Iranian newspaper, Baztab. The seminarians said that it was obvious that Muqtada's bloody confrontation with the US was doomed to fail, and that he should do the right thing and take his fight out of Najaf so as to protect it, just as Imam Husayn had protected Mecca.

This is precisely the correct manner in which to address the misuse of religion - by fighting fire with fire. If Sadr - or Osama bin Laden for that matter - choose to wrap themselves in religious justification for their essentially political causes, then they must be forced to discover that the mantle of religion has thorns of responsibility.

Sadr has likened the occupation forces to Yazid, the tyrannical caliph who ruled Damascus and upon whose orders Imam Husain AS was martyred. Sadr was very quick to adopt the rhetoric of Husain's AS martyrdom - now he must be held to that standard.

There has been a lot of critique against Ayatollah Sistani for not doing enough, but I detect his hand in the message above. The point here is that Sistani at all costs wants to avoid the fate of the earlier British imperial adventure in Iraq, where the Shi'a rose up in religious war and ultimately lost any influence over its governance, ensuring decades of oppression under the Ba'ath. Diana Moon has argued that Sistani wants the same outcome as Sadr, namely a theocratic state on the model of Iran, but that's just not accurate. Sistani has consistently moved to support the cause of direct democracy, and criticized the CPA and Bremer for not moving quickly enough. Direct democracy is incompatible with the Iranian model, as we saw last year with the full-scale boycott of the Iranian elections by the reformers. Sistani does not want that path, and has supported the constitutional process. Sadr is the one who sees democracy as a threat, and he is rightly the one who needs to be marginalized. In doing so, however, lies great risk, and only Sistani's behind-the-scenes maneuvering can prevent Sadr from achieving the notoriety he desires.

UPDATE: There are some Shi'a in Najaf willing to take up arms against those who wrap themselves in the flag of Islam, unjustly:

In a deadly expression of feelings that until now were kept quiet, a group representing local residents is said to have killed at least five militiamen in the last four days.

The murders are the first sign of organised Iraqi opposition to Sadr�s presence and come amid simmering discontent at the havoc their lawless presence has wreaked.

The group calls itself the Thulfiqar Army, after a twin-bladed sword said to be used by the Shiite martyr Imam Ali, to whom Najaf�s vast central mosque is dedicated.

Residents say leaflets bearing that name have been circulated in the city in the last week, urging Sadr�s al-Mahdi army to leave immediately or face imminent death.

The name Thulfikar is very significant indeed, to a Shi'a. This is the highest form of jihad I have seen, because they fight not against non-muslims doing their duty, but against pseudo-muslims who try to subvert the faith. I've engaged in a verbal form of jihad against the same enemy myself. Sadr's little blasphemy is also triggerring a larger, non-violent backlash that has yet to crest.

Zell Miller endorses repeal of the 17th

via Atrios, comes news that pseudo-Democrat Zell Miller has publicly announced his support for repealing the 17th Amendment:

"It is the system that stinks. And it's only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists."

The Constitution called for voters to directly elect members to the U.S. House but empowered state legislatures to pick senators. The aim was to create a bicameral Congress that sought to balance not only the influence of small and large states but also the influence of state and federal governments.

I've no love for Zell Miller but for once he has a point - which I've made myself a few times as well^[1]. The problem with direct election of Senators is that it makes the Senate vulnerable to the same special interest lobbies that dominate the House. Your Senators do not, strictly speaking, represent you; they represent the State you live in.

Because Senators are not appointed, the States themselves have lost much of their power. This has direct cost - for example, unfunded mandates from Congress sail through the Senate, because it looks good for them to say they voted for No Child Left Behind - while even Republican governors in their home state cry foul over the federal interference.

In Atrios' comments section there's a lot of reactionary alarmism about how repealing the 17th would deliver the Senate to the GOP. This is pretty defeatist an attitude, with the basic assumption that all state legislatures are partisan-right majorities lacking any evidence. The more important point however is that the removal of special interests from directly influencing the Senate campaigns overrides any theoretical temporary partisan advantage.

There is a legitimate controversy and debate over the issue and I'd like to appeal to any fellow liberals not to reject the idea just because Zell proposed it, but to actually follow up on the topic yourselves. Here are some links culled form my previous posts that I think make the case quite cogently.


The full text of the 17th Amendment

CNN FindLaw discussion by John W. Dean (of Watergate fame and author of the new book, Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush)

Argument based on checks and balances within the Constitution


^[1] Here are my earlier posts that address the topic: tyranny of the majority, tyranny of the minority; reclaiming the label "republican"; repeal the 17th Amendment?

Yes, in those posts I do quote Steven den Beste, Glenn Reynolds, and Eugene Volokh. I think the idea has merit irrespective of the ideological leanings of those who have discussed it. The immediate impact of repealing the 17th would IMHO be a cleansing of special interests' power upon the political process, and as a liberal, I find that to be within my ideological imperatives.

A Woman Marches

One of my closest friends relates her personal experience marching on Washington this weekend for abortion rights. In comments to her post, Kim succinctly summarizes why I also support abortion rights, even though I am morally and religiously opposed to abortion:

I do see the [anti-choice] movement as anti-woman, though some individuals in the movement are not. The whole idea is condescending. When nearly everyone agrees that something is so wrong it should be criminal and we need to prevent a few people whose morals are broken from doing the thing (actual murder for instance, or burglary, embezzlement, rape...) then a law is the right tool for the job. Here though, we have millions of women, up to 1/3 by some estimates, who choose to do do something that the majority of people believe is acceptable (or at least isn't "wrong"). This is a huge moral grey area. No one is clearly right or clearly wrong, we have our own views on that. Laws are absolutely the WRONG tool for this kind of job.

The anti-choice movement harms women both by actually taking away our right to make our own medical decisions and receive medical care in our best interests...but perhaps WORSE is that it's a pack of people attempting to substitute their generic judgment for that of the women affected. Women are not children, we are capable of making moral and ethical judgments on ambiguous issues.

Where I disagree with Kim is on the relative proportion of people on each side. I think that the largest majority (even is technically pro-choice) likely shares my view about abortion being (morally) undesirable; Kim doesn't explicitly acknowledge that there's a subcurrent within the pro-choice movement that sees abortion as no more a moral decision than trimming a fingernail. Overall we have to resist the temptation to ascribe the motivations of the fringe to the majority. Still, there's no question that much of the anti-choice movement's momentum comes from the zealous fringe, especially in legislative and judicial domains. As Matthew Yglesias points out, though, that way lies extreme danger for the Republicans.

MATRIX Revolutions: complex godhood

I just saw the Matrix: Revolutions last night on DVD. The movie was brilliant^[1].

I have only a superficial understanding of the religio-philosophical framework around which the Wachowski brothers carefully arranged the folds of the plot, but it's clear now in hindsight that the Matrix trilogy, much like Lord of the Rings (but even more so), was really a single story. Taken singly, none of the Matrix movies never make much sense - many of my acquaintances critiqued the second movie on those grounds, but the first also has serious flaws when considered in isolation. If you disagree, ask yourself this: Why do humans need Neo at all?

You'll find that any attempt to answer that question on the basis of the first movie alone will lead you inevitably to the conclusion that humans don't need Neo, because there's nothing he can offer them that the machine architects of the Matrix couldn't simply program into the Matrix instead. The Matrix could easily have been a City of Heroes-type simulation where all people are super-heroes in capes and tights and fly around doing aerial kung-fu. They don't need Neo to teach them to question their existence. The fundamental philosophical question of the first movie - what is real? - is an irrelevant question since ultimately reality is subjectively experienced. In a very real sense, the argument over Reality is a red herring^[2].

Only by considering all three movies as one act can you really grasp at the larger picture - which is about Creation. Not just one Creation, but a cyclical one, whose prior Revolutions were hinted mostly by dialogue with the Architect in the second movie.

The most important thing to realize is that Keanu Reeves plays two Neos. According to the architect, there were two prior Matrixes, one utopian and another dysutopian. Five Neos preceded Reeves' character in the Third Matrix, and at the beginning of the First Movie he comes into realization of the fact that he is the Sixth Neo. At the end of the second movie, Neo is Reloaded - and becomes version 7. It is the Seventh Neo who changes all three worlds: The human world, by bringing peace to Zion and allowing humans to be free from the specter of genocide. The machine world, by imprinting onto the Source and allowing machines to free themselves from their strict utilitarian purposeness. And the Matrix, which is the new Garden of Eden for both races.

The process by which Neo achieves this transformation is by re-uniting with Agent Smith, as both characters follow similar growth in ability to transcend their limitations imposed upon them by the Matrix itself. At the end of the first movie, the two characters briefly join, and then Smith is destroyed. Smith reconstitutes himself (v2.0) as more than a mere Agent - and bears some trace of Neo in doing so. The two are linked from henceforth. In the second movie, Neo fights a horde of Smiths in a stalemate brawl that ultimately has no resolution - Neo just flies away, and the Smiths disperse. In the third movie, they rejoin - Neo stops fighting Smith, recognizing the inevitability that Smith would consume him - and he would consume Smith. The two merge again and connect to the Source. The process destroys them both but leaves an imprint on the Source, allowing the Machines to grow - as the child-program Sati symbolizes, an ability for the machines also to be creative beyond their function. Sati programs a sunrise, not because it is time for the sun to rise, but because she did it "for Neo" - an act of emotion and choice that transcends mere function. The Machines thus achieve via Neo (and Smith) a dimension of freedom that brings them closer to their own Creator god - Humanity. The merging of Neo and Smith symbolizes the merge of Humans and Machines - in the physical world, by the Peace which will allow true commerce and exchange of ideas once again, and in the Matrix by the relaxation of the strict rules governing both machine and human limitations.

I have to repeat myself - the movies (taken as a whole) were brilliant, true works of philosophical masterpiece. A much more comprehensive, organized, and much better informed analysis of all three movies was done by Brian Takle, to whom I am indebted for clearing up a few things that had me stumped (such as why Neo's powers manifested in the "real world" and the significance of the Merovingian, the latter which makes more sense also having read The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown). Takle essentially summarizes the entire trilogy when he writes:

Humanity achieved "simple" godhood by creating beings in its own image. It will achieve "complex" godhood by reuniting with its estranged children. At the same time, so will machines.

One closing thought - every character is named for a specific reason. In the trilogy, names are gigantic neon signposts towards interpretation of metaphor. I have a lot of reading to do.


^[1] Now I understand why Revolutions was so despised, as well. This NYT review is a typical example, sneering at "mumbo-jumbo". This review reads like a plaintive plea, parading it's complete ignorance of the concept of "metaphor" as some kind of merit badge. To understand this movie, you need to be the Oracle, not the Architect... you need to be Seraphim, not the Merovingian.
^[2] And no, there was never a Matrix within a Matrix, or two Matrixes. There is only the Real world, and the Matrix. No third is needed, or ever was, to understand what happened.

Occupation hinges on Najaf

I daresay that war supporters will agree with me on the headline, but not the specifics. But George W. Bush is the one who ultimately will make the final decision about whether to invade Najaf or not. On that decision, the fate of Iraq rests.

I have long argued that jihad is primarily seen as a non-violent duty by the majority of the world's muslims. That simple truth is proved daily by the failure of one billion muslims rising up across the world in violence. But there IS a legitimate violent interpretation of jihad - the defense of faith.

If the US enters Najaf, then there will be a legitimate jihad. The cause of resistance to an invasion of Najaf will be a just one.

It will break my heart.

I don't want a single hair on a single soldier harmed. They are my American brothers, this is my nation, and they are not my enemy. But Najaf is the city of Ali AS. I cannot and will not fault those who live there from taking up arms to defend the holy shrine. There is no cause to invade Najaf - none. The responsibility for the decision will lie upon one man - George W. Bush - but its consequences will lie upon the soldiers of my nation, and he will escape judgement for the time being.

Events once set in motion often cannot be undone. Invading Najaf is a nexus point. Remember it, for history will pay great attention to it in hindsight.

I may have to cease blogging entirely, cease reading entirely, cease doing any political analysis entirely, if this happens. I cannot bear it.

UPDATE: Andrew writes with a good question about my attitude towards Muqtada Sadr and his claim to the mantle of a defender of the faith:

I just read your last entry and was wondering whether as a Shi'ite you would see Sadr as a defender of the Shi'ite holy places or as an interloper who seized control of them from the rightful religious hierarchy without any authority save that of his own aggrandizement.

Absolutely not - I agree with the assessment of Sadr as a craven opportunist. However, the sentiment to which he has attached himself, parasitically, is a valid one. I see an assault on Najaf (unlike the liberation of Najaf last year) as being legitimately interpreted as an assault on faith, and anyone who fights to defend it as having a legitimate claim to performing true jihad (unlike suicide terrorists attacking innocent Jews).

I should also clarify that I myself do NOT think an assault on Najaf would be an assault on Islam, but that is my personal feeling and interpretation based on my own bias as an American ans other biases from being Bohra which are not relevant here. But to the Shi'a living in Najaf, I cannot fault them from drawing such a conclusion any more than I can fault those Americans who think 9-11 symbolized an assault upon Western ideals.

As usual, I find myself on both sides, paralyzed utterly.

Duty

Personally, I found the story of Pat Tillman deeply moving but unexceptional. By which I mean, that I think of this man as an Army Ranger, and the fact that he gave up a lucrative football contract incidental to the fact that he sacrificed his life for something he believed in.

It's Tillman's ultimate, not his financial sacrifice, that is the issue. We have a nation founded on the ideal of personal liberty. That liberty comes at cost. During World War II, that liberty was truly at risk, because there was a force of arms and might that - had it succeeded in conquering Europe - would have rivaled our own, and plunged us into eternal conflict.

The war today is about ideas, but we are not at risk in the same way. People speak of how the Islamists want to enslave us all and force us to convert to Shari'a and wear burkas and whatnot, but this is ultimately a fantasists' dream. There is no mechanism by which those who wage war against us as they did on 9-11 can actually implement their deranged fantasies, any more than these guys will ever succeed in liberating the Republic of Texas from the Northern Aggressor.

The only way that these people can ever hope to actually defeat the United States - as opposed to killing US citizens and destroying US property - is to amass the same kind of warfare capability that the Nazis almost achieved. Or to cause us to sacrivfice the ideals by which we define ourselves, but that's a discussion for another day.

The point is that Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan was indeed blood that watered the tree of our liberty, because Afghanistan remains a crucible for Al-Qaeda to pursue it's war against us. Any foothold that Al-Qaeda gains must be eradicated, to keep them marginalized and forever unable to amass the mindshare that could someday lead to the kind of massed-millions taking up arms against us as we saw in World War II.

However, the photos of our soldiers coming home from Iraq - draped in flags - is something else. They died not in the service of our freedom, but in the service of an experiment - an experiment that might, under better leadership, have been worth pursuing. The incompetence of the present Administration has not escaped honest conservative analysts, but convincing Bush's true believers of such is a pointless task.

Just as there's a real problem with hiding these photos, there's a real problem with releasing them. Josh Marshall explains:

For many opponents of the war there is an unmistakable interest in getting these photographs before the public in order to weaken support for the war. There's no getting around that.
[...]
But one needn't oppose the war to find something morally unseemly about the strict enforcement of the regulations barring any images of the reality behind these numbers we keep hearing on TV. There is some problem of accountability here.

Also see Phil Carter's thoughts. To some extent, Marshall understates the case - these photos have been eagerly seized upon as mere symbolic fodder to argue that Bush is wrong and the war is wrong without any real attempt to understand what the photos actually mean. They are just ammunition, and the cynical use of them as such is partly why the strict regulations against their publication exist in the first place.

These photos need to be seen NOT because they have any relevance to President Bush, but because they remind we, the People, of the cost of war. They remind us of the high standard which accompanies any claim upon our sons and daughters to once again water the tree of liberty. They demand from us that we hold our government accountable for how they spend this precious currency. Thy require that we be more informed, that we educate ourselves, and ask critical questions about the arguments given for war.

Is it worse to do a thing badly or not at all? The mis-management of Iraq will have outcomes yet unknown, and I pray for success but with little optimism under the auspices of the present Administration. I will vote Kerry, not Bush, not to punish Bush for starting a war but to allow Kerry to win it. But these photos need to be seen in the meantime, because when next a President goes before the People and says, we must again water the tree of liberty, we must remember these draped flags. Not just Republicans or Liberal Hawks or Leftist peaceniks - all of us.

Ultimately, we sent these men to Iraq. That's what these photos tell us.