Balance to the Force

>>STAR WARS PHILOSOPHICAL SPOILER ALERT<<
Okay, I have to write some tests and exams, so this is a perfect opportunity to begin my all-nighter with some classic procrastination.
So, Janna and I made a donation to the Make-George-Lucas-Richer-Fund and went to see Revenge of the Sith last night. I will agree with some others that this movie was better than the bad Phantom Menace and the horrible Attack of the Clones. However, I am of the theory that Lucas should've handed over directorial responsibilities to others, as he did in Episodes 5 and 6.

Here's my ranking of the Star Wars films...

1) The Empire Strikes Back ***½
2) The Return of the Jedi ***
3) The Revenge of the Sith **½
4) A New Hope *½
5) The Phantom Menace *
6) The Attack of the Clones ½

There is a philosophical problem that intrigues me, and it cuts to the heart of all the issues facing this country today. I think this problem is at the heart of Star Wars: ROTS (tee-hee). This is the problem of dualism, over which I have wasted many kilobytes. Now, the Star Wars universe is fundamentally dualistic--Dark/Light sides of the force, Sith/Jedi, Darth/Master, Empire/Republic, et cetera ad nauseam. However, one thing Taoism mentions is a balance between good and evil. This is paid lip service by the Jedi in talking about "the one" who will restore "balance" to the Force. However, as the movie makes very clear, the Jedi are understood to be totally good and the Sith totally bad. The destruction of evil is understood, therefore, to be the restoration of "balance" to the force? (Read that one as if you were a 7th grader answering a question in class.)
Also, would it not be reasonable for Anakin to assume that the Jedi would be tempted by the power involved in safe-guarding the transition from the lifetime Chancellorship of Palpatine back to Republicanism. Also, the wonderful, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" line is preceeded by--as someone whose name I cannot remember pointed out--"I believe in democracy, in the republic." (I suppose one might be able to argue that, theoretically, democracy is the absence of "absolutes.")
However, the point is, those who believe that good and evil are at war are disingenuous at best when they suggest that people should all be able to get along and resolve their disputes like grown-ups. The logical conclusion of dualism is the so-called "Stand Your Ground" Law. This is a Wild West kind of fantasy where everyone's armed and carryin' a big ol' chip on their shoulder. In fact, aren't Jedi Knights sufficiently involved in this sort of morally dubious behavior, if the world is divided between good and evil?
The fact of the matter is the Taoist idea that good and evil should be in harmony and the Christian idea that good and evil are unequal yet evenly distributed throughout all things in the universe are flip sides of the same coin. Whereas Star Wars views good and evil from a more Manichean, Zoroastrian, or--to get even more archaic--Mithraistic world view. This, unfortunately, is also the primary coloration of our President's neo-conservative worldview. There is a reason that Nietsche, Wagner, and Hitler were into Zoroaster. Also, it is suprisingly ironic that the way many Christians set up a schema of Satanism is extremely Manichean, however, Satanists themselves are anything but dualists. Rather, their view of good and evil is more orthodox than most Christians' out there.
So anyways, I watched the Patty Hearst documentary on PBS tonight (another delightful time-waster). The problem with the armed leftist revolutionaries of the 1970s was this fundamental problem of dualism. If good is at war with evil, and one is on the side of good, then how can one do "evil" in order to further the good. See, the LA cops had no philosophical problem, because the definition of their good didn't involve not killing people (double negative alert!). However, because the SLA didn't have a non-dualistic view of the universe, the project was doomed to failure.
I believe this is the fundamental problem with the Iraq War. It was conceived in racist dualistic arrogance, "We're good, they're bad; We're tough, they're weak." It was executed in racist dualistic arrogance arrogance, "We don't need the kind of civil affairs operation we might have needed when invading Europe." We acted like dualistic communists by disbanding the Iraqi Army and originally disqualifying Ba'ath Party members from the new public administration. Then, our President acts like an arrogant pig by telling our enemies to, "bring it on," which put the lie to any protestations of wanting peace.
Anyways, the problem of dualism is apparent in both of these examples. You can't force people to be good at the point of a gun. Also, you can't promote morality by being amoral--nor is it the first job of the government to promote morality, but rather to prevent the worst excesses of vice. There is more to be said here, but this post has gone on too long.