A Letter to My Sister About the Film United 93

As for the film: I dreaded seeing it, thinking it would be too hard to handle. However, it was OK. Almost the entire movie takes place in real time, from the moment the first plane hits the World Trade Center at 8:45 until Flight 93 goes down at 10:03.

However, thankfully, you aren't left in United all the time. Otherwise it would be unbearably claustrophobic. And you are never given any details about any of the passengers such that you will really identify, or cry, for them. I mean, you will care, but there's no real character development.

Much of the movie cuts back and forth from Flight 93, to various FAA command posts as people get data trickling in and try to understand it. In that sense it is what I would call a Disclosure Film of a Comprehension Film in which there is a kind of mystery that doesn't become clear until the very end (or close to the end). I guess "Citizen Kane" is the kind of film I am thinking about, with "Rosebud." In this case of course it is the mystery of hijackings, why they are happening, what's happening to these planes, who are these people taking over our plane, what do they want, is that bomb real, etc. etc.

And of course this kind of modeling is typical of 19th Century novels, especially mystery novels ("The Moonstone" comes to mind), and many symphonies or tone poems from that era (think Brahms Symphony #1 as a fair example.)

I like disclosure/understanding part of this film very much, because that's the way I remember that morning happening. And, as a document, I think it was a necessary one. After all, for good or ill, we use films to teach history, and this one is very accurate as to how 9/11 unfolded.

There is some violence but it is mercifully brief and not gory. The mutiny or prisoners' revolt by the passengers as well as the charge to the front and breach of the cockpit was, although based on guesses, I think completely accurate and valid. It is cathartic in the sense that, at the very end of the movie, you have people who died that day who are not just passive victims but active agents, and, that, to my mind, mitigates their deaths a great deal. Grandpa would have appreciated the Masonic implications: as would Goethe - "Die Tat is alles, nicht der Ruhm!", or even TR with his famous "Arena" comment. Life is about being, doing. These guys lived to the end.

On the other hand, there is ZERO political exploitation of this. This wasn't about "saving Washington" or the Capitol, it wasn't about "standing up" to terrorism, or being "heroes", it was just about some people on a plane that was hijacked who gradually realized -- along with everyone else in the movie -- what exactly was happening that day, and chose to fight it out because they didn't want to die without trying to live. They gave it their best shot, and, in retrospect, their action was inspiring and the best of life.

There is also little sentimentality. Which helps.

A lot of the disclosure takes place on the ground with various FAA and military people doing their radar trackings and such -- many of these people are played by the actual people they portray -- so all of this has a lot of authority and verisimilitude as well.

I would recommend going to see it on a matinee because then you will have several hours of daylight and real life to distract you to do the kinds of things the 9/11 people would be doing, if they had lived. That was my thought anyway. It definitely helped.

My son didn't consider it a "great" movie, because his aesthetics are heavily influenced by highly stylized film compositions, like Lawrence of Arabia, etc. etc. That's true. It's a docudrama that is very sensitively done. I would see it to bear witness, to relive and understand the day, and because it's a great disclosure/understanding type of movie. But I'd go with your kids, or something. Not alone.

The Right Way With Iran

Recently there has been a lot of talk about bombing Iran, in particular, a column by Mark Steyn which calls for the area bombing of the country, with no occupation (which essentially also means no ground forces.) Steyn's argument is bloodthirsty claptrap, but the discussion on Iran is now fairly well advanced so it's time for people to decide where they are on this.

After 9/11 I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, for obvious reasons. In fact, I supported some kind of intervention earlier, when they started blowing up the Buddhas. I opposed the invasion of Iraq, as indeed I had opposed the march to Baghdad in 1991: there were a number of obvious problems that would result. In fact, shortly before the invasion in 2003 I enumerated all the problems with the proposed invasion with a fellow veteran friend of mine, and indeed they have all come to pass. It's not as thought it was hard to see. In addition, I had been skeptical of this WMD talk since the mid-'90's, when it first became a major foreign policy issue. I was right about that, too. It gives me no pleasure. Over two thousand of our young men and women are dead, thousands maimed for life, and, not incidentally, a lot of Iraqis, too, and for what? For chasing a will o' the wisp of fear.

I see this same will o' the wisp with Iran. But in the case of Iran, I do think we should do something. However, I don't think bombing will do the trick. First, Steyn's indiscriminate bombing is deserving of no consideration. Second, it won't work, either, since we can't bomb the entire country for long without precipitating an international crisis. All bombing will do will kill some people and perhaps destroy some facet of Iran's nuclear program, but even here we cannot be sure of redundancies that are almost certainly in the program. Bombing would buy us a little time, no more.

My concern is not just whether Iran gets a bomb. My concern is that they intend to dominate the Gulf and the oil. As an American, I cannot tolerate this. My country needs to dominate the oil. Otherwise, my country will suffer. Therefore, I would propose that we need to think seriously about a hot war with Iran, as well as invoking nuclear deterrence against both China and Russia.

To do this right the first thing we need to do is re-institute the draft. We have to increase the defense budget, increase the size of the armed forces, increase our potential pool of reserves. The counter-arguments are well known, about the need for training and expertise. They are irrelevant. The signs point to a future in which the United States will have to use its military might to control the Gulf Region. We do not have enough people to do that. We have to start preparing for that inevitability.

Critics will say that we cannot do that because the political climate is not primed. They want to believe that politics is like a video game, where, if we just drop enough of the right kind of bombs, we will win. In the case of Iran, that will not be so. We have to foresee a lengthy, difficult, campaign, that will probably cause many deaths, for the sake of preventing a nuclear armed hegemon from controlling the oil on which the rest of the world depends. This is not going to be achieved by pinpoint bombing (although we can try that, I suppose) nor by the callous brutality of area bombing, which will only inflame our opponents. We have to be prepared to invade, take over the country, and stay there. (One reason being, that an invasion of Iran will certainly destabilize Southern Iraq.)

In addition, America will not only have to get used to a draft but oil shortages, rationing of various goods, and all the other paraphernalia of a nation that takes war seriously. Anything less -- such as the current War on Terror -- communicates to the terrorists and jihadists that we are not in fact serious, and we think we can control serious threats by remote control, risking neither our lives nor even a rip to our trousers. We have to dispel that notion as well.

Need I add that we need a coalition as well. We should not be expected to go into this proposed conflict alone. Russia and China can be expected to oppose us. For that, we can make numerous tradeoffs and mutually assured threats.

I am not calling for an instant invasion of Iran. In the last analysis, it may not be necessary. But we should start getting ready, just in case. After all, we started the draft in World War Two almost a year before Pearl Harbor. We should prepare, and we should indicate that we are willing to fight, die, and sacrifice to defend our way of life. Prating about dropping superbombs on Iran indicates only that we are looking for quick fix to a serious geopolitical dilemma.

My call for mobilizing to a war footing has been mocked as unserious by some. I think it is inevitable. What we need is political and intellectual leadership to explain to the American people why preparation for such a war may be vital to our interest and our way of life.

If we continue bloviating about this or that bombing alternative we will accomplish nothing except to assure our enemies that we are weak ditherers who want an easy solution that doesn't muss our hair. If we actually simply carry out a limited (or even indiscriminate) bombing campaign to take out some aspect of Iran's nuclear technology, we run a fairly high risk of failure, and we will simply earn additional rage from our enemies, as well as cascading rage from the world's Muslim population. And, yes, the metrosexual fantasy of defeating Muslim fascism without breaking a carefully manicured fingernail is just that: a fantasy.

In the end, bombs here, bombs there: it's the way out of the cowardly, the lazy, and the ADD nation. If we really want a war, and win a war, let's get ready, and get serious. Our leadership is there to lead. They must lead. There are no quick fixes for problems of this magnitude. I am not looking forward to a war with Iran. I am not even sure we need to do it. But we should be getting ready, just in case.

Critical Thinking and Historically Based Action

I agree that critical thinking is important to teach, but it's only half of what you need. In addition, one needs to be able to express oneself orally and in writing clearly and persuasively. In fact, the demands of the latter frequently helps with the former.

The need for critical thinking is less necessary in the sciences, because, well, there are rules. True, many people get by in the maths and sciences by rote memorization, but you don't stick around if you don't learn to master the material, make it your own, and analyze it. This the way most people develop critical skills in the first place.

Not to single anyone out, but, from what I have seen of the blogosphere, most of it consists of reactions to political events, and recourse to past political events (history) to put the current events in some kind of context, and from that context to infer the future.

The problem is that, with history, there is no "right" answer; The reason being that historical events are a congeries of events, and there is simply no way to "prove" with regard to a past event or series of a events that one single cause was more important than another, or many others. Furthermore, precisely because past events are past there is no way to test if a tweaking of a proposed cause would engender a radically different outcome. For this reason, I think it is clear that we have to accept that most interpretations of history and most interpretations of current events based on history are "non falsifiable", they can be neither proved nor disproved. Of course that doesn't mean we have to roll over and die, it just means we have to be modest in our arguments.

Most of the arguments that arise due to the use of historical materials (say, 20th C history), are due to saying, current event A is like past event B. And the argument can be made. But on the other hand someone else can come up and say, no, current event A is not like B, for such and such reasons, it is more like C, and so on. There really is no end to this dialectic (I mean this in the classical sense), until one side manages to create a cogent and persuasive edifice of logic that manages to set the tone until it is also eventually supplanted.

I don't say these things to be jaded or cynical. If you really study the history of historiography, as well as the political uses of history as historiography, I don't see how one can come to a different conclusion; as it says in one of my favorite religious books, "There is nothing new under the sun", and human history is not new. BTW, what I note about the tendency to extract facts about cause and effect in history also pertains to moral judgments derived from history: just because s.o. may be certain of his or her POV today, don't think that others at different times were equally sure of their POV's in the past, and I do think there is a bit of hubris in assuming that we, today, got it right (as opposed to all those dummies in the past.)

As for "And, after all, why else learn history, if not to help us act in the present and the future?" Well. I think the reason I have studied history most of my life is because it gives me insight into the human condition, to find out how people just like us coped with the various challenges of existence and attempted to solve them. It is a deepening experience, because, it allows you to live a thousand times.
I have to demur on the idea that an interpretation of the past can be a reliable guide to current or future politics because that interpretation rests on the assumption that the past bears a single interpretation of cause. It just does not.

I think I understand the background, if not exactly here, then at least the background Dr Sanity references. I would guess that it is about the WOT, and most currently Iran. Sanity writes "The pervasive denial of the reality of 9/11" -- which, whatever he or anyone else chooses to say about must be a matter of interpretation, and therefore non-falsifiable, and disputable, reveals the underlying agenda. The argument that is latent right now is that there is a clearcut historical narrative that explains what Iran now is (Nazi Germany) and there is therefore a clearcut path of action (something like, immediately bombing the hell out of it). It is being suggested (not necessarily by Neo) that those who do not accept this line of argument are trolls, or in denial, or incapable of critical thinking. If you step back from this, you can see that the line of argument is essentially setting up an argument that goes something like this: I believe that A is B, because, clearly, A is B, and anyone who doesn't see that A is B is either insincere, mentally ill, stupid, has a hidden agenda, or is a bad person. Nothing new here, either. Happens all the time: it is an attempt to take a non-falsifiable interpretation and turn it into an orthodox ideology.

I think a better approach to this whole matter is to recognize that no one is going to get everyone to agree all the time. It isn't possible; and sincere disagreement is one of those ugly realities of life, like tooth decay and death. To the point of attempting to influence politics, insofar as anyone in the blogosphere does that, one simply wants to make a clearcut argument for action based on logic and reasonable historical inferences. Then make the argument, and see what happens.

I do see in the post-9/11 mentality a tremendous increase in fear and anxiety; because most of the arguments I have seen for forceful, even brutal, action are based on fear: get them, before they get us. Well, hold on a minute. First, if we are driven by our fears, are we in control? Second, what can our enemies (however defined) actually do? Third, what were they able to do before 9/11, and how would we have successfully interdicted them at that time? Fourth, what will be the consequences of our actions, and are we willing -- as a nation -- to make the appropriate commitments? I don't know.

Going After Rumsfeld

Over the past couple weeks several former Generals have called for Sec Def Rumsfeld's resignation. The main problem seems to have been mismanagement of the Iraq War in the post-war phase, which as we all know, has put the US in a kind of tar baby relationship with nation of Iraq.

I think the criticisms are justified, but I also think they miss the point. The war itself was brilliant, but it ended almost three years ago. The post-war has not (yet) been successful, because of a lack of manpower, a lack of planning, and so on. But how can that be blamed on Rumsfeld?

Rumsfeld did not deal with any complicated postwar scenarios because all of that would have called for pre-invasion allocations of funds, exploding the notion that the war would pay for itself. He ignored calls for complicated contingency plans for the political aftermath, because that would have made it clear that the bulk of US forces would not be leaving in three months and that an easy transfer of power to Chalabi and company was just wishful thinking. Nor could Rumsfeld have demanded a half a million troops -- in line with General Shinseki's estimates -- because that would have forestalled the invasion even further, and, moreover, I must confess that I am not sure that the Armed Forces of the United States even has the ability to deploy that many people, whether long term (in terms of tripartite rotations) or even in the short term.

Bottom line, Rumsfeld played the hand he was dealt by leadership above his pay grade. Even if he had been more prescient and less "stuff happens" in his approach, it wouldn't have made any difference. True, given the situation in Iraq and Rumsfeld's responsibility for that, the idea of him heading some kind of military action against Iran does not inspire confidence, to put it mildly. But ultimately his firing now would only be punitive, and he would probably just be replaced by someone else who would be only too eager to play with another hand dealt to him from the Oval Office.

I have to say I think Rumsfeld is being scapegoated here. And yet, people have to find a locus for their deep dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the way OIF has played out. Since Bush and Cheney seem immune, and, let's face it, they were re-elected, Rumsfeld is the guy, faute de mieux.

Pesach, Freedom, Easter, Dostoevsky: from Neo-Neocon

My favorite host on the blogosphere is Neo-neocon. Various reasons. But in the month and a half I have been posting in this medium, 99% of my posts have gone there. So I will start posting them here, until I decide to post something really original.


Thanks for another rich post.

I am not a practicing religious person but I have had a lot of exposure to Christian and Jewish rituals and have affection for them. Even so I think the historical bases for both is probably more mythical than anything else. (ducks)

The notion of freedom is by necessity rather vague and thus hard to nail down, or view outside of some context.

In the case of Pesach, what is being celebrated is the deliverance of the Jewish people from bondage by the Almighty, thus is it above a celebration of that supreme being, and the special bond the Jewish people have with him by being loyal to their covenant. Yes, it is about freedom in a certain sense, but, of course it is not about freedom in the libertarian sense.

If Passover emphasizes the unity of the Jewish people by their promise to the Almighty, Easter emphasizes the unity of the believers with the risen Christ.

So the one holiday collapses time, and the other, space, for the faithful.

We in the West for a century or more have become accustomed to what might be called pluralistic ideologies, I mean, the notion that a plurality of intepretations of the world, a plurality of codes of conduct, and a plurality of individual life choices can co-exist without rancor. As a result we tend to look down our noses at societies that are "closed" (in Popper's sense), perhaps forgetting that most societies for most of human history have been run by unitary ideologies that do not tolerate dissent: and, BTW, that includes much of Jewish and Christian history, as well.

Anyway, the problem with our Muslim friends is that they are at that moment now. They have long lived under the single ideology of Allah, and now that it being threatened by their exposure to the West. So the are retreating into a kind of reactionary ideology, where fear and force are in play. And, yes, Nazism and Communism were very similar to these. And they are very different from us and therefore very scary in that way. I have that fear, and I also fear that we might become more like them, because of the challenge and threat they represent to us.

However, it's important to recognize that they are dealing from a position of weakness, despite their bluster and their (possible) WMD's, and their evident brutality (Moussaioui). They are attempting to impose an ideological straight jacket that will not hold. Unfortunately, the future of the Muslim world is going to be somewhat like the history of Europe from the French Revolution through the fall of Communism, not very pleasant, and possibly very dangerous, but, what we can do is try to manage it. We will not be able to control it.

Dostoevsky was a revolutionary in his youth: a believer that organized religion (read: organized unitary ideologies) were all mere engines of social control preventing sacred individuals from fulfilling their destiny. But when he got older he returned to faith, and thus he represents more Alyosha than Ivan by the time he wrote Karamazov.

The story really isn't that ambiguous because everyone who doesn't share a faith regards it as a phony edifice of control. Thus, everyone is Ivan. On the other hand, everyone also recognizes, when we listen to our better nature, that we need some kind of structure of values, including ethical values or spiritual values, in order to survive, and in order to love each other.

The key element is how one views the Deity: IOW, is there a overarching purpose to our lives, and, if there is, how should that guide us? Or is life just something into which we have been radically thrown, and if we live just for our own fulfillment, how long before the material comforts become dust and ashes?

I am rather sure that FD would have considered Ivan's position as one that ultimately led to solipsistic despair, and even the embrace of a newfangled unitary ideology like "totalitarianism." He would have said, instead, that the notion of finding purpose, and meaning, to life, as well as immortality, through active love, was the solution, and, mythic or no, that is what Jesus Christ is supposed to represent.

As a conservative, I am much more responsive to the old ideologies of the past, including, but not limited to Christianity and Judaism, which recognize that perfection is not possible, that human beings are weak and base, that life is, on an individual basis, a single breath in endless time, and that ego is the most pernicious of concepts.

For this reason, while I am not a believer, I think the old beliefs are a better guide to meaning than the newfangled Enlightenment ones. Freedom in that sense means, first, knowing that freedom is not about being enslaved by your ego desires, but by knowing your duty, based on what you are and your abilities, before the Most High. This is a spiritual insight, found in all the great religions and even in some great poetry.

Happy Holidays to you too.

My Response to an Iranian Lady

I think what's driving most of the pro-war crowd is fear. That is understandable. 9/11 was a terrible event and I will just say for the sake of keeping myself out of it that it touched me more directly than I will say here.But 9/11 did externalize fears about a terrorist nuclear weapon that many esp in New York have had for a long time: at least since 1993. That has to be kept in mind.

It would of course be frightening to have a superpower like the USA determine its foreign policy on the basis of fear. That is why I don't think it will happen. But it could. The governments of Nazi Germany and particularly Stalinist Russia -- and the politics of the USA during the Red Scare, both in the teens and fifties -- were also dominated by fear.

The problem is that it is difficult to allay these fears. Nuclear weapons exist. The prospect of seeing yourself, your family, or some city in the US being incinerated in a tenth of a second is real, even if it is very remote.That is what really fueled the support for the invasion of Iraq and that clearly is what is fueling the support for the bombing of Iran, and basically, the entire Muslim world.

The problem is that we have to live with this fear. If we start trying to take out EVERYONE who might hurt us with a nuke or whatever, we will never stop. And mass hysteria, governed by fear, has a bad track record of going after its own after all the obvious external threats are neutralized. Another turn on the phrase, "revolution devouring its own children."I think we, as a nation, have a bit of a mass sickness here, a mass sickness facilitated by the nature of internet communication, which, for many serves as a sink for all of our deep down impulses, some of which are quite base and destructive.

Having said that, I would prefer no more nuclear proliferation. But I cannot endorse the promiscuous use of force. The 20th Century is about that: and if we really want to learn any lessons from history, we have to learn that.

I also have to tell you, Nargess, that, being an American, I have to rate my country higher than anyone else's. That is wrong, before God, but it is the weakness of nationalism. My country will take steps to protect itself and it will take steps to preserve our way of life and our way of consumption. Naturally, I would PREFER that this be done with a minimum of violence, and with an awareness that all life deserves its right to dignity, to flourish, and to have its day in the sun.

My best to you.