In the Red Zone

Z-MAN, MEET JIM CROW

The Grand Imperial Wizard of Iraq

Before we get to the good news, check out this weird Times headline:

Violence Fails to Spoil a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Streets

What's the point of mentioning...?  Oh never mind.  What do we call a reverse "Damning But?"

Anyway, reporter Dexter Filkins goes on to write that the Independent Election Commission of Iraq estimates turn out at eight million people, or 57 percent.  Then he goes from the fantastic to the incredible:

The predicted low turnout in Anbar, a hotspot of Sunni resistance to the American occupation, was exceeded to such an extent that extra voting materials had to be rushed to outlying villages, where long lines were formed at polling stations, Mr. Ayar said.

Ready, set, go, bloggers.  Now we have to pile on the "boycott" meme.  We have to change the discourse:  It was no "voter boycott" the Muslim Scholars Asscociation was attempting, but "voter suppression."  Harith al-Dhari's group does not represent the Sunni people any more than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi does. These people are shams, phonies, liars, murderes.  And they lost.

To put their activities in another perspective:  The Muslim Scholars Association and Zarqawi's "Al Qaeda in Iraq" franchise attempted to do to the Sunni Arabs what Jim Crow laws and the KKK inflicted for decades on African-Americans in the South:  rob them of their freedom, dignity and inalienable human rights.  We can't say it enough:  this war is about civil rights in Iraq.  

Hmmm, where's all that talk about the "Resistance" now?

UPDATE:  Be prepared.  Final voter turn-out percentages may be dropping.  Could we go below 50 percent?  Still a victory for democracy, of course, but also possibilities for face-saving spin for the terrorists, the Sunni clerical establishment and Juan Cole.

VOTING RIGHTS ACTS, 2005 (2)

(Note:  You can also read this at Chester who has been kind enough to post my contributions along with his extensive coverage of the elections, and just about everything else)

It might be the wrong finger, but Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar's message to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is clear.

Nasir Hasan once told me that on April 9, 2003--the day Saddam's statue fell in Baghdad's Firdusi Square--he learned that "history can actually smile."

Well, my friends, history has just smiled again. 

I write this just after the polls have closed in Iraq.  Over 70% turnout, we hear.  Minimal violence.  Election results, of course, are not yet known--except this:  the big winners were the Iraqi people.  And democracy.

Let us pause to consider:  In a week when we commemorated the liberation 60 years ago of the Nazi death-camp at Auschwitz--on the day that, 72 years ago, Weimar president Paul Hindenburg appointed Adolph Hitler Chancellor of Germany--the forces of democracy and freedom have won their greatest victory since the fall of the Berlin Wall.   There are few words to describe the magnitude and magnificence of this moment.  Just as there are no adequate words to describe the sacrifices of the Iraqi people and American soldiers that brought the world this moment.

Look at these pictures from Iraq. (scroll down).  No doubt we'll be seeing many more shots like this. Average people. Two years ago few of us (including myself) gave much thought about them; they were unknown, unseen, blotted out by the abysmal shadow of Saddam Hussein.  Yet today, they were the focus of the entire world.  Today, the course of history pivoted on their fingertips--fingertips stained not with the blood of tyranny, but the ink of democracy.

And their enemies, what of them?  What of those who indulged in grandiose fantasies of "blood baths" and "massacres" rather than engage in the quiet, humble process of elections?  They--thank God--could not make good their threats in full.  Oh, we can guess their next tact will be to claim the elections were "illegitimate"  (unlike, of course, their nihlistic "insurgency").  But, as Osama bin Laden once said, history rides with the "strong horse."  In the competition between Al Qaeda and democracy, Al Qaeda lost.  Big time.  Who's the strong horse now?

What to look for in the next few days:  Sunni voting results from areas not under threat of terrorism.  If we can determine that Sunnis would have voted if not in fear of their lives, then we can gauge the measure of their committment to democracy.  If, as I suspect, it is high, then we must immediately replace the concept of a "Sunni boycott"  with "Sunni vote suppression."  Boycotts are voluntary acts of non-participation; suppression is when you use force to prevent someone from acting.  And if terrorists and their clerical allies suppressed voting, then doesn't that "de-legitimize" their claim to represent Sunni Arabs?  In this case, contending that Sunnis didn't vote because they supported Zarqawi and the Muslim Scholars Association would be like saying blacks didn't vote in the post-bellum South because they agreed with Jim Crow and the KKK.

And what of our friends on the Left?  I'm sorry they can't share in our joy--because there is no reason they should not.  Alas, like the Muslim Scholars Association, they, too, decided to "boycott" the elections.  For example, here is what the great lefty website Daily Kos had to say yesterday:

The war is long past lost. Time to pack it in, and save the lives of our men and women in uniform that will otherwise face a barrage of bullets and RPG rounds during their extended stay in the desert.

Clearly, Dean-shill Marko Zuniga has an odd perception of liberalism.  On a day when millions of Iraqi citizens stood up against the specter of fascism to exercise their rights as free and dignified human beings, Zuniga claims the election is "simply an exercise in pretty pictures."  Tell that to the Iraqis who danced and cried for joy at the chance to vote, Mr. Zuniga.  Tell that to people who have suffered for decades under a tyrant whose crimes were brutal to the point of madness.  Tell that to the men and women who died to make this day a reality.

But Zuniga can't top the outrage posted on TalkLeft.  First, the site runs this excerpt from Chris Allbrittion's blog from Iraq :

So far, not as much violence as everybody feared. The question is why? Is the insurgency taking a pass on this one? (It's possible. Our sources in the insurgency say the election will make no difference to them, so why expend a lot of energy?) Is the insurgency much weaker than previously thought? Or is the level of security sufficient to keep it in check? If that's the case, then that is discouraging, too, because the measures that have kept today safe (so far) are truly draconian. No driving, dusk to dawn curfews, states of emergency. If that's what it takes to provide security in Iraq, why erase one police state only to replace it with another?

Beneath this tactless, heartless passage, they post a photo of a U.S. soldier in sunglasses.  Message received:  the U.S. has formed a police state similar to Saddam's regime.  Tell that to the Marines, folks.

But let's let that pass.  Today is not for us, it is for the Iraqis.  No doubt there will be further victories to enjoy and disappointments to mull over in the days to come.  For now, let's contemplate the meaning of democracy and the spread of freedom in a hitherto dark land.  And let us celebrate, for today history did more than smile.  It cheered.

Update

10:20 a.m. -- The polls are closed now.  Nour tells me the competition in Basra is tight between the Shia's 169 ticket and Allawi's slate.  If true, this is surprising.  Although, as Nour says, many Iraqis are fearful that the Shia are too close to Iran.  The religious parties have also earned much opprobrium from Basrans for apparently financing some of their operations with fuel smuggling and drug dealing--particularly hashish.  This was going on last Spring when I there, so I'm not surprised it has continued. 

9:00 a.m. -- al-Sistani's representative Ali al-Hakim, chief of the Al-Abulla mosque in  Basra, told Nour that al-Sistani will not vote in the elections.  Seems the Grand Ayatollah never renounced his Iranian citizenship.  In other words, the man who did so much to guide Iraq to this place cannot participate in the elections he helped create.

7:50 a.m.  -- Here's some information from Nour in  Basra.  She's working with a U.K. Guardian reporter who apparently has some contacts in the street.   She tells me:

*  Voting is heavy in Basra.  At some sites, people are shouting out "169"--the United Iraqi Alliance ticket -- and the monitors and election coordinators do the actual voting.

* Christians are apparently voting for Allawi, afraid of the domination of the religion parties.

* The Buraha region in the center of the city is voting fairly heavily for the Communist Party

*  In the Sunni-T, turn out low, as expected.  According to Nour's info, 9,000 people out of Falluja's 400,000 or so voted.  She tells me one (!) man in Tikrit voted.

* She heard of 10 explosions in Baghdad.  In the town of Al-Hartha, north of Basra, anti-Iraqi fascists drove a pick-up truck disguised as a police vehicle into the polling station.  No word on casualities, but the site was closed.

More to come. 

VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 2005

I't's 6:30 a.m. EDT, I've spent the last hour trolling the 'net looking for Iraqi election information.  It seems we're in a lull, not suprising since one of the glories of democracy is that it's actual process is rather dull (even, apparently, with the threat of car bombs and assassination), as opposed to mind-numbing cathedrals of light and gargantuan eagles and other Speerian flourishes. 

I do have some initial thoughts, which I'll organize into a better post soon. 

We should expect a low Sunni turn-out.  Why?  Well, we know, right?  The so-called "Sunni boycott."  But, no--that is wrong!  The majority of Sunnis want to vote--what the Sunni "leadership" has done is no boycott, but old-fashioned vote suppression. They didn't boycott the vote, they suppressed it with gunmen and homicidal martyrs.  Saying, "The Sunnis refused to vote because their leaders organized a boycott" would be similar to arguing that blacks in the South after the Civil War refused to vote because they agreed with lynchings and Jim Crow laws.  I am kicking myself for not realizing this rhetoric trap earlier.  Score one for the anti-Iraqi forces.

Oh yes, can we now call the fascist paramilitaries "anti-Iraq?"  (Credit:  Chrenkoff)  They garnered enormous legitimacy posing as fighters against "foreign occupation"--now it is clear--even to the left, or should be, at least--who they truly oppose:  average Iraqis.

Speaking of average Iraqis and democracy--check out the photographs of people going to vote.  (I don't have time for links at the moment.)  This is the true beauty of democracy--you, me, millions and millions of people around the world care so much that everyday Iraqis are voting.  They are the heroes of the day!  And to think, less than two years ago, they were unknown, unseen, unheard, blotted out by the abysmal shadow of Saddam Hussein.  That is Democracy:  power--and visibility--and identity--to the people!

More later.  I'm contacting Nour in a few minutes to get the situation in Basra.

QUOTES OF THE DAY

There will be no turbans in the government.

--  Adnan Ali, senior leader of the Shia Dawa Party

(Dexter Filkins, New York Times)

It's a question of luck.   A small group of [terrorists] can't target all the voting stations.  I'm going because [Ayatollah] Al-Sistani said that whoever doesn't vote is going to hell.  If the station I'm voting at is attacked then, God willing, I'll die a martyr.

--  Baghdad resident Haider Al-Maliki

(Nermeen Al-Mufti, Al-Ahram Weekly)

[T]he Iraqis do not feel that these elections will lead to the fulfillment of their main demand, which is the end of the U.S. occupation.  They simply do not see a light at the end of the dark tunnel.

-- Harith Al-Dhari, head of the Muslim Scholars Associations, a Sunni group opposed to holding the elections on January 30. 

Unfortunately, Mohammad Al-Anwar, who interviewed Al-Dhari for the Cairo-based Al-Ahram Weekly failed to ask the obvious follow-up questions:  If the Sunnis' main demand is the departure of U.S. troops, why do so many support the "insurgency?"  Why not simply help form a democratic government and ask American forces to leave?  The Sunni leadership, such as it is, has no answer to these questions--for their true goal in their fascist counter-insurgency is to reclaim lost honor and the perquisites of power by re-instating a dictatorial Baath regime.  But that hardly makes good copy, especially when compared to Shia like Al-Maliki, does it?

ABC POLLS IRAQ

Maybe you saw it on television, but it bears repeating nonetheless.  ABC's poll of 1,300 Iraqis in over 20 cities and towns revealed some surprisingly good news.  You can read a report on the survey here, but one passage in particular bears quoting:

Perhaps the most remarkable finding is a positive one:  Iraqis are hopeful and optimistic despite the profound difficulties they face in their daily lives.  The surveys and the anecdotal interviews are filled with example of people who told us "We feel less safe," "We have less money," "We have less electricity," etc.--and then closed by saying, "We believe our lives are getting better."

Optimists and pessimists alike seem to hold out hope for the elections.  Nationwide, more than three-quarters of our respondents said (a) they plan to vote and (b) they believe in democracy.  Jan. 30 is seen as a watershed--even by those who say they intend to boycott the vote.  One is certainly left with the impression that people will be less likely to tolerate problems after the election.

And that's what democracy is all about, right?

THE WAR FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

My piece about the war in Iraq and the struggle for civil rights is up on NRO today.

WRONG LEFT TURNS

I.  If this were anywhere but Iraq...

The fascists are making good on their word to ratchet up violence as election day approaches.  On Tuesday, a homicidal martyr killed two people and wounded nine in front of the Baghdad headquarters of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.   On Monday, gunmen killed two candidates for the National Assembly--Shaker Jabar Sahlia in Baghdad and Alaa Hamid in Basra.  Also killed in Basra on Monday was Riad Radi, running for the city's provincial council.

Meanwhile, as the New York Times' Dexter Filkins reports from Baghdad:

candidates are often too terrified to say their names, instead of holding rallies, they meet voters in secret, if they see them at all.

Of the 7,471 people who have filed to run, only a handful outside the relatively safe Kurdish areas have publicly identified themselves.  The locations for the 5,776 polling places have not been announced.

"I call it the secret election," Filkins quotes one Iraqi official.

On Sunday, Filkins reported on one Iraqi who dared to stand up to the fascists, Wijdan al-Khuzai.  "Ms. Khuzai, a 40-year old mother of five," he writes,  "saw in the elections on Jan. 30 a rare moment to steer her country in a more humane direction."  In the 1990s, Khuzai worked on behalf of women, helping to establish a center in Hilla where she distributed aid to "widows and mothers."   In 1996, Saddam "suggested" she become an informant for the Baath Party;  she refused.  Asked last year by the Independent Progressive Movement to run on its slate, Khuzai traveled about the country openly discussing her plans, refusing to use bodyguards.

On December 24, Americans troops found her body on the highway to the Baghdad airport.  Writes Filkins,

Ms. Khuzai had been shot five times, once in the face.  Her shoulder blades had been broken, and her hands had been cuffed behind her back so tightly that her wrists bled.

Why would a mother of five risk her life to bring democracy to Iraq?  Says her sibling, Nada Khuzai, "My sister figured that if she didn't do it, then no one would." 

...the Left would be roiling in outrage

especially if democracy were under threat in places activists really care about. 

II.  Once upon a time they fought fascists in the name of organized labor...

On January 4, a "masked gang" broke into the Baghdad home of Hadi Salih.  His crime had been to serve as a leading figure in the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), one of 12 labor organizations formed in Iraq over the last two years.  According to Johann Hari, the IFTU had already recruited some 300,000 Sunnis, Shias and Christians.  As Hari reports, the Islamofascists grabbed Salih and

bound him hand and foot and they blindfolded him.  They beat and they burned his flesh.  Once they had finished torturing him, they strangled him with an electric cord.  As a final touch, they riddled his body with bullets.

..now many fight against labor in the name of fascism...

Numerous organizations--from Occupation Watch to U.S. Labor Against the War to the AFL-CIO--denounced Salih's murder.  But do they really think this sort of assassination never took place under Saddam--and won't continue to do so if the Islamofascists succeed in destroying democracy?  Argues Hari, a leftist based in England,

The murder of Salih bears all the hallmarks of Saddam's Mukhabarat--the Baathist KGB.  Whatever you thought about the justice of the recent war in Iraq--and there were plenty of good reasons to oppose it--the only decent path now is to stand with a majority of Iraqis against the murderers of Salih and dozens of other Iraqi trade unionists.

There's a leftist sentiment we can rally around.  Unfortunately, as Hari observes, it is not universally shared among his colleagues.  He writes that well-known radical Brit journalist John Pilger

who says he has 'seldom felt as safe in any country' as when he visited Saddam's Iraq--now openly supports the resistance on the grounds that 'we can't afford to be choosey.'  The Stop the War Coalition passed a resolution recently saying the resistance should use 'any means necessary...[Scottish MP] George Galloway has attacked the IFTU as 'quislings' and described the tearful descriptions of one of their members of life under Saddam as a 'party trick.'

A few months ago, Hari continues, Subdhi al-Mashadani, an IFTU representative, spoke at London's European Social Forum, a collection of internationally-minded activist groups.  If al-Mashadani was looking for support, he went about the wrong way:

[He] didn't restrict his comments to the need for occupation troops to leave once a democratic election has been held.  He also insisted on talking about the nature of the Sunni 'resistance'--one of the most reactionary political forces anywhere on earth...The audience at the Social Forum booed and hissed him so loudly that he had to leave the stage.

...or they simply don't seem to care at all.

I was curious about how the better-known lefty blogs were reporting the recent Islamofascist attacks on Iraqi's fledgling democracy.  After all, we can imagine the turmoil they'd been in if this battle took place in Nicaragua, El Salvador or Honduras, areas with attractive (preferably Native American) indigenous peoples where the U.S., and not Syria, Iran or Saddam Hussein is the bad guy. This is what I found.

January 19th, 7:10 p.m.  Daily Kos: a RAND report on "avoiding a draft;" social conservative dissatisfaction with Bush; Howard Dean; political problems for Senator Lincoln Chafee; something about "red state governors;" an attack on Condoleezza Rice; Bush's Social Security plans; Bush's Social Security plans (again); Senator Boxer's opposition to Gonzales; something about Martin Frost.

7:15 p.m.  Talking Points Memo:  Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas; Bush's Social Security plans; Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (again); John Kerry's opposition to Rice; Martin Frost; Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (again); Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (again); Patty Murray; a table of Social Security beneficiaries; Bush's Social Security plans (again); Martin Frost (again); Bush's personal finances; Cheney and Social Security; disability benefits; social security (again) (again) (again).

7:25 p.m. Eschaton (Atrios):  social security; Lou Dobbs; Lawrence Summers' comments on women; Bill O'Reilly; social security (again); an attack on Hugh Hewiit; social security (again); social security (again); Bill Thomas; social security (again); social security (again); Condi; Martin Frost; a story about a G.I. accused of torturing Iraqis (finally!); parent notification laws; Bill O'Reilly (again)

To be fair, there are left-wing blogs that do cover the conflict--such as Juan Cole's often useful but relentlessly anti-war Informed Comment.  And indeed, this blog does not cover important issues like social security and Alberto Gonzales or the latest Howard Dean up-date.  But then again, I don't purport to cover a wide range of issues, just Iraq and the War against Islamofascism. 

7:30 p.m.  Wonkette:  don't anyone miss the exciting post about Social Security!

III.  Meanwhile, abandoned by much of the world, Iraqi democracy struggles on...

The headline of Christine Hauser's front-page Times article last Saturday says it all:

Under Fire, Election Workers In Iraq Are Scared but Resolute

She goes on to write about thousands of Iraqi election workers who have formed a veritable "clandestine political movement" involved in

organizing voting boxes for polling centers, drawing up leaflets about how to vote, distributing posters promoting the elections, working on designs for ballots and sending out resignation forms...

all under great risk to their lives.

Threatened, attacked, kidnapped and killed, Iraqi's election workers are finding that being at the forefront of the electoral process means surviving the frontlines of an insurgency determined to stop it.

Listen to these men and women--quoted by Hauser--who are hazarding all to fight fascism.

There are a lot of people who also would fight for what I do.  I believe in democracy.

There will always be that possibility of a car bomb or gunmen, but we have got to vote anyway.  This is what our religious leaders say we must do, because it will empower us.

All I need is for at least one person to know what I believe in, in case I lose my life.

January 20, 5:35 a.m., Lean Left:  the cost of the Bush inauguration; Social Security; re-districting; children's science fiction; lefty blog contest; the Armstrong Williams controversy; something about liberal politics and judges; Bush's troubles with the religious right.

...especially the Iraqi Communists.

It should come as no surprise that the first public democracy rally was held December 17 by 2,000 Communist Party members at the Baghdad sports stadium.  Not only that, but they have continued to campaign in a remarkably open fashion.  As Filkins reported on January 16:

When workers for the Iraqi Communist Party drove a caravan with loudspeakers into Shoula, a neighborhood in northern Baghdad, on Friday, many of the residents looked on dumbfounded with their mouths agape.

"We will lift up the poor!" the young Communist shouted into the bullhorn.

Filkins continues,

The Communists, for instance, now espousing free elections and religious tolerance, are among the few Iraqi parties that send candidates into the streets.  Two of its members have been gunned down in the past month.

As I write in In the Red Zone, of all the democratic activists I met in Iraq, the Communists impressed me the most.  Not because of their ideology, but because their program was stridently secular, non-nationalistic and pro-democratic.  Moreover, unlike many Iraqi democrats, who seemed to believe democracy consisted of meetings and publicity and press releases, the Communists knew how to build small grassroots institutions and to mobilize followers.  Not only that, but they're saying all the right things these days.

As Samir Adil, head of Baghdad's Worker-Communist party told me, "We oppose religious and ethnic parties seeking to divide Iraq.  Our enemies are not Shia, Sunnis or Kurds, but Islamic terrorists."  Another WCP member is Yanar Mohammad, a firebrand leftist who, at least when I saw her last, was speaking openly about the need for Iraqis, and the world, to fight "political Islam." 

Interestingly, in a recent interview WCP spokesman Khasro Saya expressed deep disappointment with the Western left: 

Assigning the struggle against political Islam to the communists in the East alone and not participating in this struggle, apart from being an absolutely wrong understanding of communism and the communist struggle, removes the Western anti-imperialist Left from the front of the internationalist struggle and puts it in the front of bourgeois reaction beside the criminal policies of Islam.  (my emphasis)

Unfortunately, the WCP maintains the Marxist-Lenin preoccupation with world domination:  "The objective the WCP struggles for will only come true through a socialist revolution of the working class." 

By contrast, the older Iraqi Communist Party seems dedicated to a more moderate vision of social change in Iraq.   In Basra, I spoke to ICP head Ali Mehdi, who told me, "We want to establish labor unions, an independent judiciary, and participate in democratic elections, where we can put forth reasonable demands--we have no interest in a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or setting ourselves up as an alternative to the government or the police."  As for capitalism, Mehdi struck a surprising note of accommodation.  "Our country is in need of private enterprise and the skills and capabilities it can bring to Iraq."

No wonder an NGO official in Basra told me, "If I were the Americans and wanted to spread democracy through Iraq, I'd pour money into its Communist parties."

Don't get me wrong:  personally, I find the red flag as abhorrent as the black or green.  But the idea is intriguing:  if the U.S. used radical Islam to hep defeat communism, why not use communism to help defeat radical Islam?

IV.  Meanwhile, the carnage continues.

January 19, 2004:  four big explosions erupt in Baghdad as fascist thugs continue their attempts to strangle Iraq's nascent democracy.  Twenty-six people were killed and 50 wounded.

But never mind that--did you read Matthew Yglesias' fascinating take on Social Security?

QUOTES OF THE DAY

Iraq's new constitution, to be drafted by the newly elected national assembly, will not be inspired by sectarian considerations and...the voice of all Iraqis must be heard in the debate on the constitution

-- Ayatollah Sistani spokesman Hamid Al-Khafaf, speaking in Cairo

Iraq's Sunnis must be represented in any future government regardless of the election results.

-- Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and a front-runner for Iraq's new Prime Minister

We will accept and give full support to a Shia-dominated government provided that it draws a timeline for the withdrawal of occupation troops.

-- Harith Al-Dhari, head of the Muslims Cleric's Association, the main Sunni political organization, speaking to Al-Hayat newspaper

Elections should not be the endgame but only the beginning of a long process...In the end, what we want is a government that represents the interests of all Iraqis and not those of a sect or ethnic group.  Our judgment will be based on the agenda of the government rather than its composition.

-- Iyad Al-Samarrai, spokesperson for the Iraqi Islamist Party, a Sunni group

(Omayma Abdel-Latif, Al-Ahram Weekly)

The elections aim to separate the Iraqi from his religion.  When people vote for politicians, secularists, those who co-operate with the occupation--they will not think of God.

-- Moqtada al-Sadr

(Steve Negus/Dhiya Rasan, Financial Times)

Beware of henchman who speak in the name of Islamic parties and urge people to participate in the election.

-- Osama bin Laden

Lastly, consider this comment from the New York Times about the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

[F]or the ordinary people of Iraq...it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the American gone

Actually, I'm cheating here.  That last quote is from Times correspondent Sydney Schanberg and he was not talking about Iraq, but Indochina.  Schanberg expressed the sentiment that life would improve for the people of that region once the U.S. pulled out in a front-page article dated April 13, 1975.

Four days later, Cambodia fell to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

KING DAY

Michael Luther King was born on April 15, 1929.  Nowadays, in order to provide their citizens with a three-day week-end, many municipalities and states commemorate the life of this man--who later changed his name to Martin--on the Monday nearest to his birthday.  So it is today we observe the semi-holiday of one of America's greatest figures, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and martyr to the cause of human rights.

Few of us, I wager, commemorate "President's Day" by imitating Washington's nobility or Lincoln's patient compassion--let alone Christmas by emulating the behavior of its natal figure--so it's no wonder that for many Americans, Martin Luther King Day has become little more than an extra day off work.  Either that, or time for media pundits, politicians, academics and the myrmidons of the "diversity" industry to mouth bromides about "peace" and "tolerance" and "respect" for the "Other's" own "special identity."  (The quotation marks seem necessary.)

Of the two, I think lazing in front of the flat-screen with remote in hand seems less harmful to the legacy of Dr. King. After all, it was--as many right wing observers note--the civil rights leader himself who stated in his 1963 "I Have a Dream" oration:

I have a dream that one day my four children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character.

Multiculturalism, identity politics, essentialism, resentment, segregated college campuses, the self-loathing misogynistic culture of Hip-Hop--all this, and more, is antithetical to King's vision.  Antithetical because at their base lies tribalism, the reactionary mindset that lures mankind back to the primitive cult of blood and soil and biological determinism.  All  of man's advancements--from a vision of an ethical god to the supremacy of law over patriarchal custom--have come contra tribalism.  Many, if not most, of man's defeats have occurred when the bigotry of tribalism has extinguished the light of civilization and human rights.

King knew this threat all too well, yet maintained faith that justice would always prevail. 

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.  I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.

As indeed, the assassin who took his life in 1968 has not--and could never--have the final say in the legacy of this true American hero.

Who speaks, who acts, and who doesn't was vital to King's vision of human rights.  From his 1963 letter rebuking the pastors of Birmingham for their objections to his activism ("Was not Jesus an extremist in love?") to such oft-quoted statements as "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter," King enjoined his listeners to abjure cowardice, expedience and vanity to follow the call of conscience.  Fifty years ago, American liberals did just that:  riding, for example, with the Freedom Riders, or working for voting rights in the South.  Many lost their lives:  just recently, we read about how Mississippi authorities re-arrested Edgar Ray Killen for the 1964 murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman.

Today, however, in the greatest civil rights issue to confront America since the 1960s, the Left remains silent, or even hostile.  I mean, of course, Iraq.  Before our eyes, we see people struggling to achieve self-determination and freedom beset by the same reactionary tribal forces that Killen and his night-riding terrorists represented forty years ago.  Only this time, it is largely the neo-conservative right, joined by some courageous liberals--as well as American soldiers of every political persuasion--who are answering Dr. King's call to conscience.  The left has simply checked itself out of the fight. 

Is this war any different than other struggles for human rights?  On a lonely road in Iraq last March, terrorists ambushed and murdered Americans Fern Holland, Robert Zangas and their Iraqi translator Salwa Ali.  Their crime was to attempt to establish women's centers in the central part of the country.  Their lives were spent in the identical cause that Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman--as well as Medgar Evers and so many others--gave theirs, as well:  democracy.  When paramilitary death-squads target and assassinate Iraqis who were cooperating with the government, is that not similar to an old-fashioned lynching?  When gunmen stalk the Iraqi countryside, murdering civilians in the name of "defending their homeland," can we not see a modern-day Ku Klux Klan?  When a car bomb explodes, killing innocent Iraqis--do the victims not join hands across the years with the four teenage girls killed in the Birmingham church bombings? 

As Dr. King once stated,

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. 

On a personal level, of course, it doesn't matter who speaks out for democracy and human rights in Iraq--the issue is larger than any single one of us.  And it is true that reasonable people can differ reasonably on many issues involving this war.  Still, for many of us who hold within our hearts a combination of fear and hope for the future of the Iraq, we can think of no greater tribute to Dr. King than to stand beside those tortured people--and the Coalition soldiers who seek to protect them--as they struggle toward a better future.  On this Martin Luther King Day, then, let us pray for the Iraqis and our soldiers, and so honor the legacy of the the man whom we reflect upon and honor.