Should the Anti-war Movement Support the Iraqi Resistance?

There is a really good interview with naomi klein at http://www.alternet.org, where she is saying some things about the war in Iraq...and the current state of the anti war movement, which I feel really need to be widely considered!

The problem is that at least SOME of the "anti-war movement" are actually against war.

That doesn't mean being against unjust war, imperialist war, etc. but all war. The concept is that however great the evil, war is in and of itself a greater evil, not a cure. You may agree with that or disagree with that as you wish. But what you must agree with is that this is what being "anti-war" means to a significant number of the people who are consistently supporting anti-war actions.

So this proposal would not lead to greater unity within the anti-war movement. Instead it would drive out all those who were anti-war.

is to soundly defeat the aggressor. Anglo-American imperialist expansionism in wont cease until it encounters a modern day Teutoberger Wald.

Note that Mike, sanctimonious as ever, fails to state his own anti-war views.

We are left to infer that he is categorically opposed to *all* war, but my guess is that what he's categorically opposed to is war waged against the US government.

nessie: "The surest way to stop this war and prevent the next one is to soundly defeat the aggressor."

True. We defeated Germany quite soundly in 1918, and they've hardly been any trouble at all since then.

@%<

Yes, of course, the peace movement supports the Iraqi resistance. Otherwise, it is a war movement. To be for the defeat of US imperialism is to support the victory of the Iraqi resistance.

This conference is apparently another "contemplating one's navel" idiocy, as most conferences are. The middle class always go through this stupidity because they are removed from class struggle. The workingclass is not; and this is especially true for the workingclass in the military. During the Vietnam War, the workingclass either refused to enlist or be drafted, or when in the military, after the 1968 Tet Offensive, refused to fight or when all else failed, either went Absent Without Leave (AWOL) or joined the Vietnamese resistance!

There are only 2 sides in this war (1) the right side, namely the Iraqi resistance, and (2) the wrong side, namely US imperialism. To quote an old labor song, which side are you on?

The first happiest day of my life was the victory of the Vietnamese resistance on April 30, 1975, giving US imperialism its well-deserved defeat. The whole world peace movement literally danced on its feet, including right here in San Francisco and Berkeley. We celebrated the victory of the Vietnamese resistance, when the "little people in black pajamas" defeated the mightiest death machine the world had known since its previous equally evil death machine, Nazi Germany, and we will do the same when, not if, the Iraqi resistance kicks US imperialism out of Iraq, and this time, it will be the end of US imperialism, as the American economy is collapsing all around us. The private profit system is in its death throes.

Three cheers for the Iraqi resistance!
Victory, victory is our cry,
The class struggle is the reason why!

Dear Abby,

My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit card
bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at
me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our
kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the
interest.

Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of
them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he
has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more.

Also, he has gotten religious in a big way, although I don't quite
understand it. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people
who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

And now he has been going to the gym an awful lot and is into wearing
uniforms and cowboy outfits, and I hate to think what that means.

Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the
same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath. It's just so horribly
creepy! Can you help?

Signed, Lost in DC
- ---

Dear Lost,

Stop whining, Laura. You can divorce the jerk any time you want.
The rest of us are stuck with him for four more years.

"Insofar as the forces on the ground in Iraq aim their blows against the imperialist occupiers (including the over 20,000 private mercenaries operating in the country), we call for their military defense against U.S. imperialism. Every blow struck against the imperialist occupiers is a blow struck against the enemy of workers and the oppressed all over the world.

But we do not imbue the forces presently organizing guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces with “anti-imperialist” credentials and warn that in the absence of working-class struggle in Iraq and internationally against the occupation, the victory of one or another of the reactionary clerical forces is more likely to come about through an alliance with U.S. imperialism. We are intransigent opponents of the murderous communal violence against other ethnic, religious and national populations oftentimes carried out by the very same forces fighting the occupation armies. And we condemn the kidnappings and executions of foreign civilian workers in Iraq."

http://www.icl-fi.org/ENGLISH/2004/Iraq-830.html

Here's an intelligent and useful piece by an anarchist writer from the UK, taken from Infoshop News, at http://www.infoshop.org:

Andrew Flood: Anarchism and the Iraq elections
Friday, January 28 2005 @ 08:18 AM PST

The Iraq elections

This Sunday Iraq goes to the polls and gets to choose its own government.

Or so we are told. Probably no one who was opposed to the war actually belives this but its useful to look at the flaws in the election process and then to ask what hope is there for the Iraqi people.

The first obvious flaw, is that the election is taking place while Iraq is occupied by a foreign army. Add to this that the current regime was more or less appointed by that army. And that the process is setup to return a national assembly which will have very little power to do anything itself except draft a new constitution.

International election observers will not actually be in Iraq but in neighboring Jordan - presumably peering over the border with very powerful binoculars. Who is standing is actually a secret as is the location of polling stations. It gets even more bizarre, US soldiers have been passing out candy and election material while on patrol [1]! Presumably this is the sort of thing that UN electoral division chief Carina Perelli meant when she said that "the US military has been I would say overenthusiastic in trying to help with this election".

Earlier this month a scandal quietly erupted when the (US government appointed) Prime Minister Iyad Allawi was revealed to have handed out $100 bills to journalists at a campaign meeting[2]. Some of the opposition parties have been complaining of the lack of media coverage they have received, this might be one explanation.

Even the method of voting is pretty odd. Basically the list of candidates is being kept secret so you vote only for a party/list. There are no constitencies, each party gets a number of candates elected in proportion to what its (supposed) national vote was. There is a choice of over 90 of these lists and as many are themselves coalitions its not at all clear what, if anything, most stand for.

The lack of constituencies is relevant when you consider that most if not all Sunni Arab votes are liable to boycott the election. If Iraq had been divided up into constituencies this wouldn't matter so much as even a tiny turnout in areas that are predominantly Sunni Arab (i.e. the 'Sunni triangle') would ensure a somewhat proportional number of Sunni's were elected. But without any such constituences the end result will be an Iraqi national assembly comprised entirely of Shia and (Sunni) Kurds.

If what you were aiming for was civil war leading to partition there is an absurd logic to this. But maybe this is too cynical?

The debate in the anti-war movement
Of course the joy of being an anarchist is that even if these elections were to be conducted perfectly we'd still recognise that all they would do is bring to power a gang of politicans who the people would have no power over. So to a certain extent we can stand above the squabbling that is taking place in the anti-war movement in relation to the elections. But the squabble is interesting.

Basically some anti-war commentors, most notably Gilbert Achcar have pointed out that if the elections are conducted fairly the results may be very uncomfortable for the US occupiers. In fact it would be likely to "give way to a Parliament and a government in which Shia Fundamentalist forces, more or less friendly with Iran, are hegemonic"[3]. Given all the noise that the US government has been making in recent days about war with Iran this could be a little arkward for them. But in fact the powers of the national assembly are limited, in particular unless it can get a 2/3 majority, so the US designers of the election have probably already covered themselves against this outcome.

Achcar's suggestion that it might be a mistake to write off the elections in advance greatly annoyed some of the trots involved in the anti-war movement. They tend to quietly have the 'my enemies enemy is my friend' and thus try and silence any criticism of the resistance in the anti-war movement. This rather self-indulgent line is based on hoping that Iraqi workers will defeat imperialism for them and never mind if the process of doing so throws them into the hands of Islamists. After the mass executions of the left that followed the Islamist takeover of the Iranian revolution this sort of self serving 'logic' from the professers of the western left seems and indeed is a little unpleasant and I don't intend to discuss it further.

Both positions do seem to flow from a requirement of 'what would be best for us in the western left'. They ask 'Would it be better if Iraqis militarly defeat US imperalism for us or would it be better if they defeat it through the ballot box'. Given the suffering our governments have already imposed on the people of Iraq this seems like a very odd way of approaching the question of the Iraqi elections.

Another approach - an internationalist approach - would be to ask what is in the interest of the ordinary Iraqi people and what can we do to show solidarity with them. When you ask that question the choice offered above beween a Shia dominated Islamist regime or a Sunni dominated Islamist regime doesn't seem to have so much to offer. Already huge numbers of women are now forced to wear the veil in Iraq. Over 1,000 Iraqi women have abandoned their university studies. Hinadi, the star dancer of the group 'el-Portoqala' was killed by Islamists while visiting her family. Apparently "el-Portoqala sings modern songs, which outraged some Islamists who said the songs were pornographic, liberal and 'alien to conservative Iraqi society'. In reality the songs merely showed women dancing and posing as lovers"[4].

What hope for the people?
If you rely on the mainstream media and the left then Iraq seems to be without hope. The choice it appears is only between US imperialism and Islamist reaction. In fact Iraqi workers have not been sitting by since the occupation - there have been many militant workers struggles in Iraq, it is just nobody bothers to report on them because they don't fit into the predefined conceptions of the struggle.

There have been rumors and some reports of anarchists active in Iraq but it seems that such forces are not yet significant. However there are other progressive forces who have managed to get news of their activities onto the web. They are also calling for a boycott. In particular the Worker - Communist Party of Iraq declares that "The Election is a Puppet Show to Legitimatize the U.S Policy in Iraq.[5]" They see the intention of the US in this election to be "to impose a reactionary Islamic and ethnocentric puppet government.[6]"

The WCPI are an interesting neo-leninist group which broke with orthodox communism out of their experiences in the workers councils thrown up in the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the uprisings that followed the 1991 Iraq war. The conclusions they came to are in some ways similar to that of the Dutch and German Council Communists of the 1920's. Naturally enough this experience also left them with a healthy hostility towards the Islamist program. They warn that "Iraq has become a battlefield for a war between American and Islamic terrorism and the Iraqi masses are constant victims caught amid the fire between both these terrorist forces".

They have a fairly comprehensive English language website (at http://www.wpiraq.net/english ), which includes regular PDF newsletters detailing the struggles they are involved in. There is an obvious enormous gulf between anarchists and Leninists but if we leave that aside for this article the WCPI offer a real breath of fresh air in much of the debate around Iraq. Their real efforts to build union and womens organisations in Iraq offer at least an alternative that can be built on.

Their recent document "Worker-communism and the Armed Struggle in Iraq:guerrilla war or mass armed resistance?"[7] is well worth reading as it tries to sketch out an alternative path to ending the occupation. This acknowledges a need for armed resistance but seeks to "avoid the traditional guerrilla-style of armed resistance" substituting one which "focuses on mobilizing and leading the population to reclaim various suburbs, villages, towns and cities and bans both US forces and Islamo-ethnocentric militia from entry". Significantly for anarchists one of the reasons they give for this alternative form of resistance is that "It encourages the population to intervene in running their own affairs. It will embroil the masses in a process, which will raise their awareness."

An ongoing struggle
It has become clear that the occupation in Iraq is not likely to be a short term event but something that is intended to go on for years and even decades. The US military machine is deeply entrenced both in Iraq and in the Whitehouse. Ending the occupation will not come about as a result of a march, no matter how big or any other single event.

We need to view the war in Iraq not as a distant event but as part of our own backyard. The fight of Iraqi workers for justice is part of our own fight for justice. And just as we would refuse to accept a struggle led by those who seek only to be an alternative oppresser we should not demand that Iraqi workers switch one oppresser for another.

The election this Sunday will change nothing for the better, even if those it brings to power are somewhat hostile to the US occupation. What we need to be doing is to look for and reach out to whatever progressive forces are struggling in Iraq and show solidarity with these. At the end of the day our fight for freedom is a global fight - or it is no fight at all.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1 A picture of them in action is at http://iraqpictures.blogspot.com/2005/01/soldiers-with-3rd-battalion-21st.html
2 Reported at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4168925.stm
3 See http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6948
4 http://www.wpiraq.net/english/2004/Basra-popular_entertainer191204.htm
5 See for instance the text of their leaflet announcing demonstrations in England http://www.wpiraq.net/english/2004/wpiUK-election251204.htm
6 http://www.wpiraq.net/english/rebwar_call.htm
7 Online at http://www.wpiraq.net/english/2004/workercommunism-armedstrugle45.htm

We did no such thing. Peace was negotiated. Germany was never occupied. It's war making capacity was never destroyed. It wasn't defeated. It stopped fighting to defend itself against internal revolution. The Allies let it, because they didn't want another Russia.

Anglo-American imperialist expansionism would be, at the very least set back decades by a catostrophic defeat of its expeditionary force.

And that's what's going to happen if they don't leave soon:

http://www.g2mil.com/May2004.htm

"she argued that including support for the Iraqi resistance into the demands of the anti-war movement would have a disastrous effect. If you make that a point of unity in the anti war movement, she argued, you will not be able to build a mass movement capable of stopping the war."

THIS SOUNDS LIKE THOSE 'LIBERAL PEACENIKS' (LIBERAL ZIONISTS INFILTRATORS) WHO USED TO SAY THAT IF ANTI-WAR RALLIES EXPLICITLY INCLUDED PALESTINIANS (AND OTHERS) SUPPORTING PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS FROM ON STAGE -- LET ALONE WITH FLAGS IN THE CROWD -- THEN WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD AN ANTI-WAR MASS MOVEMENT.

WELL, THAT PROVED TO BE ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

NOW 'LIBERAL PEACENIKS' (LIBERAL ZIONIST INFILTRATORS) CLAIM THAT IF WE SUPPORT -- AT LEAST IN PRINCIPLE -- THE IRAQI RESISTANCE OR THE PALESTINIAN RESISTANCE, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD A MASS MOVEMENT CAPABLE OF STOPPING THE WAR.

THAT'S BUNK TOO.

WHAT THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT NEEDS TO DO IS TO TELL THE LILLY-LIVERED NON-VIOLENT STRUGGLE *ROMANTICISTS* TO GO OFF AND START THEIR OWN DILETTANTE, 'DO-GOODER' MOVEMENT --

AND LET THE REST OF US GET ON WITH A ***SERIOUS*** ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT THAT ACTUALLY *SUPPORTS* ARMED RESISTANCE AND IS MORALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY A **REAL** THREAT TO AMERICAN EMPIRE ADVENTURISM (and its tag-along poodle).


The anti-war movement should also explicitly encourage and support military war/draft resisters, military war/draft evaders, and military conscientious objectors.

Sounds good but it also sounds vague. What exactly is "autonomous working class resistance" in a country where identity politics is strong enough that even among those who are secular one has a big difference in the demands of Shiite, Sunnis and Kurds. Viewing the world in terms of classes where the working class is seperate from the fundamentalists can lead to a lot of misinterpretations of current conditions. In Iran the main opposition to the fundamentalists is from an educated middle-class elite with the religious police comming from poor rural backgrounds. Similarly in the US one finds fundamentalists much more common among poorer communities. On the one hand one must stand up to working-class fundamentalists but on the other one doesnt want to come across and being antiCapitalist but pushing American social values (and the values of the Iraqi economic elite) on all of Iraq. One also doesnt want to end up in the Sparts quagmire of denouncing all opposition groups in the Occupied Territories and demanding a Leninist workers state that inluces Jews and Palestinians when there isnt a huge demand for that comming from the communities themselves (the demand comes across as both utopian and vanguardist in such a context)

in my comment...

Tariq Ali and Arundhati Roy both explicitly support the Iraqi resistance!!
by JA Monday, Jan. 31, 2005 at 1:31 AM


...the "she" at the beginning of the comment body text refers to "a spokesperson for the End the War Coalition in England" decribed in the original article at the top of the page -- not to Arundhati Roy, who indeed supports the Iraqi resistance.

Kurds are an ethnic group. Sunnis are a religious sect. Most Kurds *are* Sunnis. Most Moslems are Sunnis.

Kurds are an ethnic group. Sunnis are a religious denomination. Most Kurds *are* Sunnis. Most Moslems are Sunnis.

It's one of those empty faddish utopian (hallucinogenic) leftists' slogans -- [purposely] "vague", as you ("?", 1:53 PM) rightfully put it -- probably by COINTEL infiltrators/dupes -- designed to always divert attention from -- and eternally put off -- any immediate *real* work at hand, but instead to start the "immediate wordlwide revolution by the worldwide working-class masses to overthrow the capitalist states!"

Such utopian/hallucinogenic leftists overlook the historical fact that the working-class in the imperialist nations are always happily bought off by the (neo/)imperialist exploitation of the working-class in the oppressed nations. That's why you get such *hallucinogenic* *crack-addled* calls that we must get all the working-class Jews in Israel to join with the working-class Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to overthrow -- well..., not even the Zionism that greatly benefits the former, but -- "tha im-perial-list ca-pi-ta-list states"! And the same 'utopian-leftists' call for uniting the American working-class masses, happily bought off by the U.S. imperialist exploitation and oppression of other working-class masses, with those exploited to the former's great benefit.

If you hear these as empty stock phrases (especially about uniting the international working class masses -- unless they are actual in-the-trenches progressive union organizers/workers/activists, like the ILWU) from any "leftist", and especially if they are brandishing their newspaper in front of your face for sale at a demo, just say no thanks and keep on walking.

[Tariq Ali and Arundhati Roy both explicitly support the Iraqi resistance!!
by JA Monday, Jan. 31, 2005 at 1:31 AM


...the "she" at the beginning of the comment body text refers to "a spokesperson for the End the War Coalition in England" decribed in the original article at the top of the page -- not to Arundhati Roy, who indeed supports the Iraqi resistance.]

I believe that the positions of both are somewhat more nuanced than your post suggests

I have read the transcript of Roy's interview where she discusses the fallacy of waiting for a perfect, sanitized resistance, but I don't recall her saying that she supported the resistance as such, or any particular groups within it

my sense is that both can be more accurately described as supporting the right of Iraqis to be free of occupation, and that both understand the right of Iraqis to violently resist an occupation that has been violently impressed upon them

perhaps, I am picking nits, but I think that it is an important point, for example, see the chapter in Tariq Ali's book, "The Clash of Fundamentalisms", entitled, "The Anti-Imperialism of Fools", where he castigates the Iranian left for supporting the lslamicists in Iran in the late 1970s and early 1980s

in that instance, he undoubtedly opposed American and British imperial control of the country, but still vehemently objected to the vision of the Islamic fundamentalism movement within the revolutionary movement, and I suspect he has a similar stance here

Ali and Hitchins probably split along this fault line: Hitchins believes that the violence of the American military occupation is a legitimate means of suppressing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, while Ali believes that Iraqis should be allowed to chart their own destiny, even if they choose a course that he, from the comfortable confines of London, believes to be mistakenly, even horribly so, free of American imperial control

along these lines, the election, numerous legitimate criticisms aside, may well be a watershed event towards ending the occupation, because it is evident that many Iraqis voted because they believed that participating in the election was a necessary precondition towards getting the US to depart

--Richard

Yes I also recommend Tariq Ali's "Anti-imperialism for fools" especially for JA.

The most important thing American radicals can do is to analyze and put the war in class terms to help to turn the American working class against the Iraq war. Like Vietnam-- we can expect the soldiers to turn against this war. 5000 desertions isn't a hallucination. 50% of the US public is against the war. Supporting religious fundi kooks and Baath party fascists is "the anti-imperialism of fools".

I hate to say it--- but its sad when The Nation style liberals like Marc Cooper are analyzing the Iraq situation with a way more nuanced approach than the turgid leftist response on indybay.



Fear and Polling In Iraq [UPDATED]
The Iraqi elections were surreal but on the whole heartening and downright inspiring. I cannot imagine many Americans voting under such horrific conditions, frankly. There are many reasons why the Bush administration insisted on having this vote take place in the midst of a bloody war—and few of them have anything to do with the advancement of democracy. And please remmeber that the Bush administration orginally opposed this type of direct voting having orginally pushed for a cockamamie caucus system. The direct one man-one vote polling was won by the Iraqis, and specifically by the struggle of Ayatollah Sistani.

All in all, I don't think it was fair to force people out into the current atmopshere to vote and that the elections should have been preceeded by enhanced security conditions.




That said, millions of Iraqis disagreed and were willing to brave the risk of car bombs and mortar fire because they hope and want a better future-- something they are absolutely entitled to.




I don’t believe that the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing occupation were justified by the arguments presented by the Bush administration. Nor do I believe for a moment that this administration knew or currently knows what it is doing and is dangerously lost in a fog of dogma.

But the political opening in Iraq, no matter its limited size and the grotesque distortions imposed by the war, is a felicitous by-product of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the U.S. occupation.




Those of who opposed this war and who want to see the U.S. troops withdrawn as soon as possible should unequivocally encourage the tenuous political process now underway in Iraq. We should stand for more and better elections, not fewer. We should be encouraging the writing of a fair constitution, an inclusion of the Sunnis into the process in order to reduce the violence, and a bolstering of civil society (as a safeguard against fundamentalism). If we merely write off yesterday's vote as only potemkin or charade elections we take ourselves out of any serious debate and we degrade the legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people. Indeed, the more one opposes the war and its pretexts, the more we should support the stabilization of a successful, pluralistic Iraqi state.




There is no “other side” to support. The Bush administration’s cartoonish characterization of the armed opposition is just that -- cartoonish. The insurgency is, indeed, rife with religious fundamentalists, revengeful Ba’athists and a certain foreign terrorist element. We can also be sure that there are other less politically defined “nationalist” strains who are just plain angry and humiliated by the dire economic conditions and by the presence of foreign troops. But taken together, this insurgency offers no evidence of supporting a political process that is somehow more open than the limited process imposed by the U.S.




I was truly encouraged and inspired by the Iraqis who went to the polls today. I will keep them uppermost in mind in the days to come as fundamentalists on both sides of the political spectrum step in to spin these complicated and still uncertain events. The Bush administration is already verging on a posture of Mission Accomplish Version 2.0 while ignoring the more complex ramifications of this war – both abroad and domestically. Likewise, some on the anti-war left are making an equal error by writing off Sunday’s voting as a “charade” a “farce” or as “so-called” elections. Both of these attitudes from the right and the left are a dis-service to the Iraqi people.

We need to find a way to escalate the politics and reduce the bloodshed and simplistic nostrums from triumphalists on the one side or lefitsh isolationists on the other will not cut the mustard. We owe a more sober response to the Iraqi people.

UPDATE: Just came across this first person piece in the WSJ by Farnaz Fassihi reporting from Baghdad. This is precisely the sort of direct journalism I was calling for in the column I wrote in the posting below. See what a great read it is and how much you learn without the reporter have to "balance" it with official spin.

<<What exactly is "autonomous working class resistance" in a country where identity politics is strong enough that even among those who are secular one has a big difference in the demands of Shiite, Sunnis and Kurds.>>

"Identity politics" is a term used to describe a certain brand of left-ish politics in the United States today. It shouldn't be casually used to describe the situation in Iraq.

That said, if Iraq is so horribly riven by ethnic/religious sectarianism as you suggest, why has there never been a civil war in Iraq? Why were posters of Sadr--a Shiite--to be found all over Sunni-dominated Fallujah last Spring? Why did many Shiites gather material assistance for Sunnis when they came under attack by the Americans?

I don' t understand on what basis you say there are "big difference[s]" in the demands of "even secular" Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. What are these huge differences? Be specific. Are you saying a filthy rich Shiite has more in common with an empoverished Shiite than s/he does with an equally filthy rich Sunni? What are you saying?

On a different note:

JA--having unlocked his all-caps keys and taking a breather from his hysterical baiting of **ZIONIST JEWS**--imparts a thoroughly maoist "analysis" of the working class in the imperialist countries. According to JA, the working class in America--even the black and brown working class--is bought off by imperial looting, period, end of subject. Hey JA, get your head out of your ass! Where the fuck have you been? This view had the virtue of being new and slightly resonant thirty five years ago, but times have changed. Are you aware that the US is in DECLINE, that real wages have been falling for more than thirty years, that the average American household is in debt up to its ears, that homelessness is a reality for tens of thousands of workers (as is lack of adequate health care, affordable higher education for tens of *millions*), that it's disproportionatley working class youth, drawn to the military because of a lack of opportunities, who're being killed and maimed in Iraq in the thousands (i could go on)?!?!?!?

Why don't you try out your theory that the US working class is bought-off by imperialism on your neighborhood Safeway checker (what with that terrific union contract coming down the pike, HA!)--or better yet, why not try it out on a Wal-Mart worker! I'm sure the hotel workers locked-out a couple months ago would be thrilled to here your pet theory!

Once you've made some friends among the working class, perhaps you could tender some empirical evidence that the working class in the United States is a net beneficiary of US imperialism.

And then you can get back to cheering reactionary fundamentalists who kill civilians with abandon in far away lands!

. . . is that the Iraqis will decide what it means, not us

just as the Poles in the late 1980s participated in an equally flawed electoral system, and used it to jackhammer the remains of the edifice of the Stalinist system imposed after World War II, the Iraqis may well do the same to the occupation, which, for many, is viewed, and this is a critical point, as a continuation of US policy in the region since the 1980s, when we supported Saddam

Robert Fisk is closest to the reality of the situation, I think

He acknowledges the emotional intensity of those who participated in the election (unlike some on the left for some reason, who seem to mistakenly believe that such an acknowledgement constitutes an implicit validation of the Bush policy), while recognizing that the personally liberating aspect of it constitutes a repudiation of Islamic fundamentalism, Baathism and the occupation, cautioning the US and Britain of serious consequences if they see the result as justifying their continued presence

For some reason, it has fallen to a right wing libertarian, Justin Raimondo, to remember that Bush and the Occupation Authority opposed even this seriously flawed politicalprocess, and only begrudgingly agreed after Sistani threatened a fatwa against the occupation if they did not relent, so, in the big picture, the left should support better, faster and more meaningful elections and autonomy, but is there really any disagreement here?

The unanswerable question is whether Iraq is facing a February 1917 environment where the political establishment is unable to address the disintegration of the society (in this instance, manipulated to the advantage of the occupation by the US), opening the way towards the legitimization of the armed resistance among the entire populace

It has been evident for some time that many Iraqis reject the violence and suicide bombings of the al-Zarqawi group and other Islamic fundamentalist groups, including many among the secular resistance

so the question becomes, who will ultimately generate credibility in light of future events, the secular resistance, with its ex-Baathists, the governmental coalition, with its ex-Baathists, or will the evolutionary and revolutionary tracks of resistance to the occupation converge?

--Richard

C'mon, these elections were a propaganda coup for the US. I don't see the point in trying to spin it as something different than that.

Many Shi'ites and Kurds--but not all, you can be sure--are pleased to have the opportunity to vote. That's to be expected.

The fact that some people have high hopes doesn't mean that these high hopes won't be dashed.

The US would like to peal off a layer of each of the major religious/ethnic groups and incorporate them into its scheme for retaining control of Iraq. Simultaneously the US seeks to exacerbate divisions between religious/ethnic groups, because divide and conquer is integral to the game plan.

The US is playing a high-wire act. The vote has raised expectations of a better situation (including an end to the US occupation); but a better situation for Iraqi's isn't the US' plan or goal. Dashed hopes could give way to even more ferocious opposition, so what is the US to do?-------> Try it's dangest to cobble together a stooge security force that will eagerly and professionally exterminate all those who'd stand against the prerogatives of US capitalism and the national ruling clique. Just like all those great security forces in the democracies of Latin America.

Suffice to say, radicals sound lame when they go around expounding on the virtues of democracy, even if it is the politically proper (read opportunist) thing to do.

Actually radicals sound lame when they dis millions of ordinary Iraqis who risked their lives to say that they want a say over running their own lives. No I don't think the elections will deliver anything. But the voters shouldn't be killed and shot at for going to vote.

But then again the knuckleheads who post here support the "Iraqi resistance" who at the core are religious fascists, Saddam's baathists, and probably some unclear assortment of nationalists forces. These losers are willing to kill ordinary Iraqis randomly with car bombs, assasinate trade union people and famous artists like a famous Iraqi woman dancer (because she was a woman), and regular people that just wanted to vote.

So Aaron Why don't you join up with JA, the worlds worker party, friends of Saddam like George Galloway and all the other anti-imperialist assholes.

Time to crack my knuckles AND INTELLECTUALLY SMACK AARON ABOVE UPSIDE HIS HEAD!!:

(NOT aaron aarons, my friend and fellow activist.)


aaron quoting "?": <<What exactly is "autonomous working class resistance" in a country where identity politics is strong enough that even among those who are secular one has a big difference in the demands of Shiite, Sunnis and Kurds.>>

I want to say that I felt a little guilty making fun of “a.w.c.r.” before I realized that it referred to a previous inline-posted article. I just heard the phrase in more typical delusional leftist parlance (such as “the American, Palestinian, and Israeli working class uniting to overthrow Zionism”). I am certainly not hostile to the inline article on Iraq, although I may not necessarily agree with its entire analysis or assertion of ‘facts’. (I have to read it more closely later.) In other words, upon scanning it, preliminarily, I am not hostile to the article, but I am inconclusive about it as yet.

What I am *NOT* inconclusive about is morally supporting both the Iraqi and Palestinian armed resistance -- if not in every aspect *politically*, then, in principle, *militarily* -- or in their/our other means, such as non-cooperation, protests & civil disobedience, economic & cultural boycotts when applicable (as in the case of Israel), and other parallel int’l support (such as the call for conscientious objectors and refuseniks).


aaron to “?”: " "Identity politics" is a term used to describe a certain brand of left-ish politics in the United States today. It shouldn't be casually used to describe the situation in Iraq."

Everyone knows what was meant here, and by criticizing the terminology instead of the *SUBSTANCE*, aaron is wasting everyone’s time with his needle-nose polemical nickpicking.


aaron to “?”: "That said, if Iraq is so horribly riven by ethnic/religious sectarianism as you suggest, why has there never been a civil war in Iraq? Why were posters of Sadr--a Shiite--to be found all over Sunni-dominated Fallujah last Spring? Why did many Shiites gather material assistance for Sunnis when they came under attack by the Americans?"

This happened because they had the uniting factor of a common enemy to deal with, the same way the Americans, British and *SOVIETS* -- you know, *COMMIES* -- united for a time against the Nazis. (Or before in Iraq, perhaps because dictatorial regime -- U.S. supported, at that -- kept the lid on.) Although Iraq is NOT as neatly all divided up (socially or geographically) into separate, distinct ethnic, cultural and religious groups as the U.S. govt/military and allied corporate media make it out to be, in the case of Iraq, this particular unity was notable for its very historical rarity.


aaron to “?”: "I don' t understand on what basis you say there are "big difference[s]" in the demands of "even secular" Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. What are these huge differences? Be specific. Are you saying a filthy rich Shiite has more in common with an empoverished Shiite than s/he does with an equally filthy rich Sunni? What are you saying?"

*YES*!

Poor and working-class whites in the U.S. seem to take a lot more, psychologically, and certainly culturally, in common with filthy rich white-Americans than they do with poor and working-class Blacks, Latinos, or Asians.

Working-class white-Americans -- psychologically, culturally, and nationalistically -- certainly took more in common with the filthy rich white-American elites who were thereby manipulating them in wanting to abolish the name “French fries” in favor of “Freedom fries” and join in a trans-class orgy of jingoistic chauvinism! This, instead of joining with their baguette-eating French working- and working-middle-class ‘brothers’ in opposing a purely elective imperialist war that was going to get plenty of the sons and daughters of the red-staters killed and maimed as imperialist cannon fodder and a reckless ‘al-Qaeda-recruitment’ foreign policy that might attract more terrorist attacks domestically.

And *YES!* -- even from an impoverished Shi’ite point of view, culturally and psychologically. But, your assertion is factually wrong because I don’t think there *are* any (or hardly any) “filthy rich Shi’ites because they were *all* oppressed. And I don’t think that a filthy rich Shi’ite could become one, because to become filthy rich one would have to have connections to Saddam -- and he wasn’t likely to let any Shi’ite even become filthy rich. So there.

Impoverished members of an ethnic/cultural group might identify more with wealthy members of that same ethnic/cultural group than they do with impoverished members of another ethnic/cultural group, regardless of their actual economic interests. This has been common throughout history -- especially in war -- and is certainly applicable in many countries besides Iraq today -- YOU KNOW, LIKE IN THE U.S. ITSELF THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY!

Furthermore, Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds (while hopefully they, indeed, don’t appear to be easily manipulated into the civil war that the U.S. keeps, ahem, *predicting*) do indeed have separate interests/demands, such as regional autonomy, religious interests, protection of language, culture, etc.

These interests -- let alone simple racism/bigotry/chauvinism, especially within the dominant class or even between ethnic groups -- often motivate working class people (and often just as irrationally, potentially, as religion) just as much as purely economic matters -- and often even *more* than purely economic matters, as the white working- or even middle-class in the U.S. shows.

E.g., plenty of working-class -- and even poor -- Blacks certainly identified with filthy rich O.J. Simpson -- who wanted to be more white than Black -- and now even Earl Ofari Hutchison (just google him) is out trying to get even working-class Blacks to identify with super-filthy rich *Michael Jackson*!! -- who doesn’t even want to *be* Black at all! (Of course, *now* Michael is crying “racism”.)


aaron to JA: "On a different note:"

aaron: "JA--having unlocked his all-caps keys and taking a breather from his hysterical baiting of **ZIONIST JEWS**--imparts a thoroughly maoist "analysis" of the working class in the imperialist countries."

As you can see, I haven't unlocked them all...! That reminds me: I forgot to pay this month’s RCP dues along with all the other Brothas!


aaron: "According to JA, the working class in America--even the black and brown working class--is bought off by imperial looting,"

Yes. Because (in case you haven’t noticed, and *how* would you as some white leftist sectarian lecturing *me*) Blacks & Browns -- and even the Red -- has gone marching off to *every* American war hoping that he will finally be let into “The (White) American (Man's) dream”. Those Blacks & Browns just don't realize that it doesn't include *them*!

And yet, even most poor Blacks and Browns in America -- along with even most poor whites -- are still better off than some poor Vietnamese, Chinese, etc., or poor Iraqi. And what do you think supports a Black/Brown working-class’s, middle-class’s, affluent’s, or even working-class-poor’s fronting of a, shiny SUV lifestyle? -- or their ability to buy relatively cheap clothes and goods (made in China, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.) at Walmart? -- let alone relatively token Black rising upper-class obedience?

I talked to a working-class Black male discharged soldier, a grunt with buddies then still over in Iraq, when the Iraqi resistance was just heating up. I told him, "Looks like the Iraqis don't want us over there ripping off their resources and selling off their infrastructure." He replied, "We just have to trust in the Lorrrd..." And *who’s* “Lord” do you think he’s trusting in?


aaron: "period, end of subject. Hey JA, get your head out of your ass! Where the fuck have you been?"

I’ve been *BLACK*. What the hell have *you* been!? (Nothing like socioculturally stunted or multiculturally illiterate and insular white arrogance.)


aaron: "This view had the virtue of being new and slightly resonant thirty five years ago, but times have changed. Are you aware that the US is in DECLINE, that real wages have been falling for more than thirty years, that the average American household is in debt up to its ears, that homelessness is a reality for tens of thousands of workers (as is lack of adequate health care, affordable higher education for tens of *millions*), that it's disproportionatley working class youth, drawn to the military because of a lack of opportunities, who're being killed and maimed in Iraq in the thousands (i could go on)?!?!?!?"

*Yes*, the times have changed indeed…!!

Today, while things are much *WORSE* for the U.S. working class in terms of declining spending power, declining access to health insurance, etc., union membership has not only declined, but plummeted, …resistance to the U.S. elite has also *DECLINED* from “thirty five years ago”: the white (especially male) working-class has been voting more and more *REPUBLICAN*!!


aaron: "Why don't you try out your theory that the US working class is bought-off by imperialism on your neighborhood Safeway checker (what with that terrific union contract coming down the pike, HA!)--or better yet, why not try it out on a Wal-Mart worker! I'm sure the hotel workers locked-out a couple months ago would be thrilled to here your pet theory!:"

Yeah, you know, I should learn more from *you*! --Especially about how Blacks feel.

Where's *YOUR* theory about working-class white male (including Democrat crossover) *Republican* voters?

When you see meaningful throngs of those Walmart workers politically active, organized and/or out in the streets in protest marches (outside of the bubble of the immediate Bay Area, if that), when you see Walmart workers uniting with Iraqi workers, or Palestinian workers, or Columbian workers, or even Chinese workers, gi’ me a call [sarcastic wink, ;-) ].


aaron: "Once you've made some friends among the working class, perhaps you could tender some empirical evidence that the working class in the United States is a net beneficiary of US imperialism."

That reminds me, I need to drop off some new suits that I bought from last year to the ghetto poor box, since I need room in my master bedroom walk-in closet for the new sartorial fashions in men’s haute couture for this year.

Compared to the working class in the developing world, it is. Even most people considered “poor” in the U.S. have a standard of living much of the developed world would *envy*, and in large part that standard of living has been propped up by -- guess what? -- cheap oil, which in turn is a by-product of -- guess what -- U.S. imperialism.

It may not be sustainable in the long run, but for the moment, it’s still a powerful force against radicalism in this country. I don't see the working-/middle-class cutting back on their materialistic desires any. (Now even the working-class poor want the fanciest cell phones with a camera.) So, if you’re expecting “the world-wide revolution of the working-class masses to overthrow the capitalist state” from here in the U.S., I wouldn’t hold my breath -- or feel free to if you want.

(As one Mexican worker put it, most working-class or even working-poor people -- let alone the middle-class -- in America have a life that is considered *RICH* in many so-called Third World countries: "Your own car and a decent, even if small, clean apartment on an upper level, with some comfortable furniture, a nice TV and *air-conditioning*?: that would be considered *rich* in many poor Mexican neighborhoods/villages.")


aaron: "And then you can get back to cheering reactionary fundamentalists who kill civilians with abandon in far away lands!"

And you can go back to holding your breath -- just waiting......... -- until (as Arundhati Roy put it) "the perfect revolution" comes. But don’t worry if your face starts turning blue -- I’m sure it’ll happen any minute!

But, in the meantime, nothing *else* at all is going to happen until the U.S. imperialist military occupation is driven *OUT*. (Or until Israelis can't count on killing *Palestinians* with abandon.) Just because I support *that* doesn’t mean that I am a devotee of Islamic fundamentalism.


aaron: "What we need to be doing is to look for and reach out to whatever progressive forces are struggling in Iraq and show solidarity with these. At the end of the day our fight for freedom is a global fight - or it is no fight at all."

Can you string together any more of a series of meaningless cliches in a *single* paragraph…???

Look, you can’t come half-steppin’ and bootleggin’ your way to *me* and expect not to get intellectually whopped upside yo’ head.

Let’s see…! What’s absent…? Oh, *I* know…!! Your practical *PROGRAM* or *ACTION PLAN*!! Or is “reach[ing] out” and holding hands “to whatever progressive forces” in Iraq -- in “solidarity” -- your PROGRAM or *ACTION PLAN*???

Maybe we should add to your string of cliches that “rainbows are pretty and ice cream is nice”, while we all join hands and sing! And then we can all close our eyes, click our heels three times, and say, “we’re not in a capitalist world anymore, we’re not in a capitalist world anymore, the global anti-capitalist revolution is just around the corner!”

In the meantime, it’s “no fight at all” for you, huh? Just what I thought: the call for a worldwide anti-capitalist revolution by the masses -- instead of also dealing with the immediate dire circumstances at hand -- is an excuse to do nothing but spout cliches. ‘Yeah’, your ‘theory’ of the working class and for mass world-wide revolution against the capitalist state sounds much better. Good thing I got a late evening nap; now, I can go back to sleep easy until morning.

But a person who repeatedly supports the medacious claim that Israelis kill Palestinians with abandon is a devotee of deranged anti-Israel lying propaganda.

[Suffice to say, radicals sound lame when they go around expounding on the virtues of democracy, even if it is the politically proper (read opportunist) thing to do.]

I don't see anything opportunistic about suggesting that the election is significant because it may empower Iraqis to overturn over half a century of autocratic rule, from within and, now, without.

Relating to the election at the level of seeing it as a "propaganda coup" for Bush strikes me as the same mistake that the neo-conservatives have made in regard to Iraq generally: people projecting their own insular politics and goals onto the Iraqi people.

For some reason, neither the left nor the neo-conservatives are getting this one correct, as the election is not a confirmation of Bush policy

Why the left seems incapable of understanding that resistance to the occupation takes place at many levels, some violent and some not, is beyond me

in Iraq, they seem to recognize that overcoming the occupation requires skillful, opportunistic behaviour

Sadr is a classic example, as he led a violent resistance last April, but also quietly participated in this election by having his supporters included on Sistani's list

Even so, I believe my earlier comments are consistent with what you have said: the election has raised expectations which may not be fulfilled, leading to an intensification of the violence

As a result, the election is a positive development, one that must lead the end of the occupation (which I concede is the not the immediate, probable outcome), or the discrediting of the process created by the US, and an expansion of the coalition seeking to liberate the country

--Richard

<<Time to crack my knuckles AND INTELLECTUALLY SMACK AARON ABOVE UPSIDE HIS HEAD!!>>

Well, I hope your knuckles are doing okay 'cause my head didn't feel a thing.

<<What I am *NOT* inconclusive about is morally supporting both the Iraqi and Palestinian armed resistance>>

including resistance that entails indiscriminate murder of civilians?

<<if not in every aspect *politically*, then, in principle, *militarily*>>

i was about to say this is a distinction without a difference, but then it occurs to me that it's a distinction that means nothing.

<<or in their/our other means, such as non-cooperation, protests & civil disobedience, economic & cultural boycotts when applicable (as in the case of Israel), and other parallel int’l support (such as the call for conscientious objectors and refuseniks)>>

why does this statement begin with an "or" instead of an "and"?

there are two possible answers to this question:
--your view is incoherent
--you're simply hedging.

<<Although Iraq is NOT as neatly all divided up (socially or geographically) into separate, distinct ethnic, cultural and religious groups as the U.S. govt/military and allied corporate media make it out to be, in the case of Iraq, this particular unity was notable for its very historical rarity.>>

Apparently you're unaware of the large-scale trans-ethnic communist movement (albeit polluted with stalinism, not that that's a problem with you) that existed in Iraq in the late 50s. Hussein was contracted out by the US to help demolish this threat to anglo-american control of Iraq.

<<Poor and working-class whites in the U.S. seem to take a lot more, psychologically, and certainly culturally, in common with filthy rich white-Americans than they do with poor and working-class Blacks, Latinos, or Asians.>>

You realize how vague your "seem to take a..." statements are, don't you?

I wasn't talking about racial alienation in the United States, but with that said, here's my response:

--I don't deny that racial/ethnic/religious sectarianism can trump class interests; however the existence of this sort of sectarianism doesn't mean that class interests aren't real
--Perhaps you should take a day off from your endless, borderline anti-semitic baiting of zionists and join a picket line somewhere and see if you come away so self-assured in your claim that white workers are so "psychologically, and certainly culturally" similar to "filthy rich whites."
--For every modern-day instance of cultural reaction among white workers I could show you an instance of the opposite. Indeed, the trend is toward a greater degree of racial-mixing with every passing year. Go to a predominately working class high school in the bay area and see how much mixing is going on.

<<And *YES!* -- even from an impoverished Shi’ite point of view, culturally and psychologically. But, your assertion is factually wrong because I don’t think there *are* any (or hardly any) “filthy rich Shi’ites because they were *all* oppressed.>>

JA meet Ahmed Chalabi.

<<And I don’t think that a filthy rich Shi’ite could become one, because to become filthy rich one would have to have connections to Saddam -- and he wasn’t likely to let any Shi’ite even become filthy rich.

You betray an appalling ignorance about how elites maintain their power and prestige. Why do you think Sistani got to live?

<<Impoverished members of an ethnic/cultural group might identify more with wealthy members of that same ethnic/cultural group than they do with impoverished members of another ethnic/cultural group, regardless of their actual economic interests.

Yea, there were no fraggings during Vietnam. The grunts went along with the every order given to them. There was not a hint of class antagonism directed against commanding officers, particularly the ones who came straight from the college campuses to give orders. Never happened.

<<Furthermore, Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds (while hopefully they, indeed, don’t appear to be easily manipulated into the civil war that the U.S. keeps, ahem, *predicting*) do indeed have separate interests/demands, such as regional autonomy, religious interests, protection of language, culture, etc.>>

Again, another ridiculously vague assertion (one without any supporting facts to back it up). What are "religious interests," JA? What does "regional autonomy" mean to the polyglot population of Baghdad?

In any case, I'm certain that a desire to have basic security, fulfilling work that is well-compensated, good housing, sanitation, education, and health care--all of which go to the heart of matters of CLASS--are every bit as much if not more of a concern to the working class and poor in Iraq as is your ill-defined list.

<<That reminds me: I forgot to pay this month’s RCP dues along with all the other Brothas!>>

umm, okay. whatever, guy.

<<Blacks & Browns -- and even the Red -- has gone marching off to *every* American war hoping that he will finally be let into “The (White) American (Man's) dream”. Those Blacks & Browns just don't realize that it doesn't include *them*!>>

Assuming this was all there is to say on the matter (which it isn't), why do you expend so much time arguing against those who say killing for the "white man" isn't in the interests of working class folks generally?

Are you that indebted to some crypto-maoist/nationalist ideology?

<<And what do you think supports a Black/Brown working-class’s, middle-class’s, affluent’s, or even working-class-poor’s fronting of a, shiny SUV lifestyle?>>

JA meet Visa/MasterCard

<<or their ability to buy relatively cheap clothes and goods (made in China, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.)>>

JA meet the new edition of Air Jordans, that'll be $130

<<I talked to a working-class Black male discharged soldier, a grunt with buddies then still over in Iraq, when the Iraqi resistance was just heating up. I told him, "Looks like the Iraqis don't want us over there ripping off their resources and selling off their infrastructure." He replied, "We just have to trust in the Lorrrd..." And *who’s* “Lord” do you think he’s trusting in?>>

I'd be more interested in hearing your response than in conjecting about the nature of his superstitions. Judging from this thread, I'd guess you told him "Well, bro, this war is bad but it's in your interest, so go to it!"

Me earlier: Hey JA, get your head out of your ass! Where the fuck have you been?"

<<I’ve been *BLACK*>>

Good one.

Where's *YOUR* theory about working-class white male (including Democrat crossover) *Republican* voters?

In lieu of a class response to declining conditions--something that neither you nor the Democrats offer or have any interest in developing--some white workers apparently derive more satisfaction in sating their social conservativsm than in doing what exactly? Vote Democrat?

But even more relevant is the fact that less than half of eligible voters in the US even bother to vote, and we all know
that a disproportionately high percentage of these non-voters are.....WORKING CLASS!!

<<When you see meaningful throngs of those Walmart workers politically active, organized and/or out in the streets in protest marches (outside of the bubble of the immediate Bay Area, if that), when you see Walmart workers uniting with Iraqi workers, or Palestinian workers, or Columbian workers, or even Chinese workers, gi’ me a call>>

No, your line will be tied-up jaw-boning with zionists on the internet.

BTW: I didn't see *you* out on the pickets when the pre-dominately non-white hotel work-force in SF was locked-out two months ago.

In any event, you're (again) confusing the state of mobilization of workers with their, dare i say it, objective interests. I could just as easily--and as INaptly--argue against your support for the Iraqi resistance by pointing out that the vast majority of Iraqi's aren't fighting the invaders.

<<As one Mexican worker put it, most working-class or even working-poor people -- let alone the middle-class -- in America have a life that is considered *RICH* in many so-called Third World countries: "Your own car and a decent, even if small, clean apartment on an upper level, with some comfortable furniture, a nice TV and *air-conditioning*?: that would be considered *rich* in many poor Mexican neighborhoods/villages.">>

While I question whether these things are the sole standard for determining standard of living, I don't dispute that there are big difference between the living standards found in the US and the "Third World." But it's a big leap to say that therefore the working class in the US categorically benefits in net terms from imperialism, particularly as this system's decay is becoming more and more inescapeable.

Me earlier: "And then you can get back to cheering reactionary fundamentalists who kill civilians with abandon in far away lands!"

<<And you can go back to holding your breath -- just waiting......... -- until (as Arundhati Roy put it) "the perfect revolution" comes.>>

One: I have never said I'm opposed to any and all acts of armed resistance to the US take-over of Iraq. Find where I ever said any such thing. You won't be able to. Unlike you, however, I am unwilling to be interpreted as IN ANY WAY sympathetic to Islamist formations or armed groups that kill civilians indiscriminitely.

Two: How does your (incoherent) cyber-support for the armed resistance in Iraq make any difference to the dynamic in Iraq? How does it help in the struggle against US imperialism? Be specific.

<<But don’t worry if your face starts turning blue -- I’m sure it’ll happen any minute!??

You know what they say about sarcasm don't you?

<<But, in the meantime, nothing *else* at all is going to happen until the U.S. imperialist military occupation is driven *OUT*. (Or until Israelis can't count on killing *Palestinians* with abandon.) Just because I support *that* doesn’t mean that I am a devotee of Islamic fundamentalism.>>

Translation: You support blowing up public buses in Israel and think it helps the struggle for Palestinean self-determination, BUT you have no time for Islamic fundamentalism otherwise. HA!

<<aaron: "What we need to be doing is to look for and reach out to whatever progressive forces are struggling in Iraq and show solidarity with these. At the end of the day our fight for freedom is a global fight - or it is no fight at all."

Can you string together any more of a series of meaningless cliches in a *single* paragraph…???>>

Well, I agree that that is somewhat meaningless, although not as meaningless as your insistence on supporting armed resistance in Iraq and Palestinean as if it matters what you have to say about it from the comfort of your "imperialist" furniture!

However, you dumbass, I DIDN'T WRITE THAT COMMENT. Go check.

<<Look, you can’t come half-steppin’ and bootleggin’ your way to *me* and expect not to get intellectually whopped upside yo’ head.>>

Yes I can.

<<Maybe we should add to your string of cliches that “rainbows are pretty and ice cream is nice”, while we all join hands and sing! And then we can all close our eyes, click our heels three times, and say, “we’re not in a capitalist world anymore, we’re not in a capitalist world anymore, the global anti-capitalist revolution is just around the corner!”>>

I note that the only "cliche" you attribute to me is based on a comment I DIDN'T MAKE.

Now, how 'bout that, *foolie*?

I could stay up the rest of the night trying to deal with all the sloppy thinking that has been expressed on this thread. But since I don't want to torture myself, I'll restrict myself to a few points

This thread starts with the question, "Should the Anti-war Movement Support the Iraqi Resistance?", which itself is unclear on at least three points:

1) What do we mean by "the Anti-war Movement"? We might say that the various manifestations of opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation constitute a "movement". But is this movement a coherent subject capable of taking particular positions? I'd say that it clearly isn't. Surely various groups and individuals that make up that movement can take positions on whatever they choose to take positions on, but it's logically impossible for the phenomenon called "the movement" to do so.

2) What do we mean by "the Iraqi Resistance"? Do we mean the totality of acts by various Iraqis that are aimed against the occupiers of their country and the local agents thereof? Or do we mean the totality of groups and individuals who are carrying out such acts?

Speaking for myself, I have no trouble solidarizing with the former, provided the definition of "local agents" isn't unreasonably broad. On the other hand, I certainly am not in solidarity with all the individuals and groups that are carrying out such acts, since some of them -- and I have insufficient knowledge to know who they are -- may attack the occupiers one moment and another time attack unveiled women, secular leftists or members of other religious or ethnic groups.

Imagining the purely hypothetical situation of standing next to a reactionary Islamist who was aiming his weapon at one of the occupier's planes, it would be quite right to pass him his ammunition or act his his spotter. But it would be wrong to give such a person money or weapons that could be used against that persons other enemies, and not just the occupiers.

This brings up the third point that needs to be clarified, which is the meaning of "support". But, as I said above, I don't want to be up all night, so I'll pass on it for now. I'm looking forward to waking up to some hopefully thoughtful comments on these points.

I hope, by the way, that the indybay editors will facilitate this discussion by keeping the page free of diversionary comments by those who support the occupation, or U.S. imperialism in general.

No the Anti-War movement cannot support the Iraqi Resistance /Terrorists / freedom fighters/ whatever else.

why not?

Because the anti-war movement would be just as hippocritical as the pro-war movement saying they want peace.

on another point:

Why would you want to censor people who disagree with you?
You begin to Censor those people and others will begin to start thinking that the person doing the censorship is wrong and the person being censored is right.

But these are just my opinions and mean jack crap in real life.

Aaron Aarons brings up an important question when he talked about what support means. I would go one additional step and ask if the question makes any real sense. Even those activists who say they support the Resistance and travel as reporters to Iraq dont usually really support the resistance in any material sense. In the case of Iraq the main way that outsiders can support the resistance is to get the US troops out, beyond that there is little that can be done.

I think Chechnya is a good example of the difference between vague support and material support. When anarchists went on an ISM like mission to support the Chechen people they were kidnapped by a group that represented those they probably felt they were there to support http://flag.blackened.net/agony/chechen.html . The anarchists were more useful to the Chechen resistance as hostages because in the Chechen case world public opinion means nothing and a change in public opinion is unlikely to help the Chechen people one way or the other (there are elements of this in the case of Iraq too). In Aaron aarons example above of supporting an attack on the Occupation Forces think of what would really happen. Almost any activist from the US who tried to support the Iraqi resitance in this way would probably get in the way more than actually be useful.

If support has no real meaning and is just a question of having "good" views that cant be reflected in anything material, where does this leave this discussion? I think all sides agree the US should pull its troops out of Iraq and if this is really the most we can do to materially support the Resistance than building a broad coalition with those who have the same demands (but may even claim to oppose the resistance) is more supportive of the Resistance than taking this as a stand that may divide the movement.

(1) US troops need to depart the country as soon as possible, because they invaded the country, and continue to occupy it, for the purpose of establishing a colonial control over the country's people and resources

(2) even so, there has always been a question, that significantly predates the war, as to whether Iraq should be governed by religious or secular values, and, in my view, people on the left should support the latter as consistent with their anti-imperialist rejection of the US presence in the country

along these lines, the significance of the election has nothing to do with whether it validates Bush or not, but instead whether it facilitates one or both of these goals

I believe that it is part of an ongoing process that will accelerate the withdrawal of US troops, probably very violently, unfortunately, but it is unclear it assists or hinders the creation of new secular society to replace the Baathist one

--Richard

"there has always been a question, that significantly predates the war, as to whether Iraq should be governed by religious or secular values, and, in my view, people on the left should support the latter as consistent with their anti-imperialist rejection of the US presence in the country"

I think almost all of the Left (in the West and the Middle East) would agree that it would be best if the future of Iraq was secular. The question then becomes one of what to do and who to support if this isnt what the Iraqi people say they want. If most Iraqis want to be part of a religious state I guess the response could be that we shold demand that minority religions and those who are secular must have their rights protected. But we are again stuck in a place where we are theorizing demands on the Iraqi people when the Left in the US not only has little power to aid Iraqi rebels but also has little sway over public opinion in Iraq (I doubt many in Iraq really care or even have the access to be able to find out what radicals in the US and Europe are thinking).

What can the US left do regarding Iraq? Perhaps we can help sway US public opinion on Iraq and even help change US government policy. VIewing things in that light I dont think anyone would want the US to back the Iraqi Resistance, or the US to demand that Iraq must be secular, or demand that a future country be in any specific form. The choice shouldnt be up to the US. Unless the US Left starts translating stuff into Arabic and trying to get it out to Iraqis we should view ourselves as only able to influence things here and thus shouldnt be making demands on the Iraqis since these can come across as demands for those in power to make such demands on the Iraqis.

["there has always been a question, that significantly predates the war, as to whether Iraq should be governed by religious or secular values, and, in my view, people on the left should support the latter as consistent with their anti-imperialist rejection of the US presence in the country"

I think almost all of the Left (in the West and the Middle East) would agree that it would be best if the future of Iraq was secular. The question then becomes one of what to do and who to support if this isnt what the Iraqi people say they want. If most Iraqis want to be part of a religious state I guess the response could be that we shold demand that minority religions and those who are secular must have their rights protected. But we are again stuck in a place where we are theorizing demands on the Iraqi people when the Left in the US not only has little power to aid Iraqi rebels but also has little sway over public opinion in Iraq (I doubt many in Iraq really care or even have the access to be able to find out what radicals in the US and Europe are thinking).

What can the US left do regarding Iraq? Perhaps we can help sway US public opinion on Iraq and even help change US government policy. VIewing things in that light I dont think anyone would want the US to back the Iraqi Resistance, or the US to demand that Iraq must be secular, or demand that a future country be in any specific form. The choice shouldnt be up to the US. Unless the US Left starts translating stuff into Arabic and trying to get it out to Iraqis we should view ourselves as only able to influence things here and thus shouldnt be making demands on the Iraqis since these can come across as demands for those in power to make such demands on the Iraqis.]

this is pretty close to my perspective, because, in addition to what you say, American left demands upon Iraq run the risk of becoming a form of left imperialism accompanying the liberal/neo-conservative imperialism already on display

"run the risk of becoming a form of left imperialism accompanying the liberal/neo-conservative imperialism already on display "

I think its about time the entire left became more openly issolationist. This would resonate much better among all those ine the US than our current stand that seems vague. A few years ago I heard Nader speak about how he would have a different foreign policy than what we have now but it left open many questions since it wasnt clearly issolationist and seemed to support US intervention in other countries as part of UN approved actions. The justfiication for the war in Kosovo were presented in a Leftist veneer as much of the war in Afghanistan and Blair's postwar justifications for Iraq. The stated reasons were obviously not the real reasons but I am left to wonder if a Nader or even many radicals wouldnt end up with things liike Kosovo or even Afghanistan if they ever came to power. In my opinion a lot of the problem is US power not just the views of those in power in the US. Would a US intervening to "Free Tibet", save the Chechens, save those in Darfur and protect the Palestinians really be better than what we have now? Wars lead to attrocities and "mission creep" mainly because of the nature of combat not just because of Capitalism and the corruption of those in power.

I hid the side discussion on editorial policy and copied the text of all the comments over here http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/12/1664397_comment.php#1719428

Hopefully this will make it easier for people to discuss both the Iraqi Resistance and editorial policy.

[I think its about time the entire left became more openly issolationist. This would resonate much better among all those ine the US than our current stand that seems vague. A few years ago I heard Nader speak about how he would have a different foreign policy than what we have now but it left open many questions since it wasnt clearly issolationist and seemed to support US intervention in other countries as part of UN approved actions. The justfiication for the war in Kosovo were presented in a Leftist veneer as much of the war in Afghanistan and Blair's postwar justifications for Iraq. The stated reasons were obviously not the real reasons but I am left to wonder if a Nader or even many radicals wouldnt end up with things liike Kosovo or even Afghanistan if they ever came to power. In my opinion a lot of the problem is US power not just the views of those in power in the US. Would a US intervening to "Free Tibet", save the Chechens, save those in Darfur and protect the Palestinians really be better than what we have now? Wars lead to attrocities and "mission creep" mainly because of the nature of combat not just because of Capitalism and the corruption of those in power.]

at the risk of sounding like a right wing libertarian of the antiwar.com variety, there is much to recommend to a more isolationist approach

US government intervention in countries around the world, whether economic or military, seems to invariably serve the purpose of imposing a system subservient to the US upon the recipient

for example, US and British foreign aid is now primarily used to compel privatization of a the recipients' resources, especially if they have public water, power, health and educational systems

accordingly, the concept of supporting any US military intervention for purported humanitarian purposes, strikes me as absurd, given these self-serving efforts to economically coerce countries to implement domestic policies for the benefit of foreign investors and the more obvious atrocious record of US military and covert operations globally in the last 50 years

along these lines, in regard to Iraq:

"We know what we have to do, say the Arabs, but every time the West intervenes it sets our cause back many years. So if they want to help, they should stay out.

This is what my Arab friends say, and I agree with this approach . . . . . . . . . .The imperial fundamentalists are talking about an "axis of evil" which includes Iran. An intervention there would be fatal."

--Tariq Ali
"Letter to a young Muslim"
The Clash of Fundamentalisms, p. 307

JA: Sorry to get back to you so late; I’ve been whoopin’ one Becky Johnson’s head at santa cruz indymedia. (Especially see “Becky’s Brain” article/thread.)

JA: <<Time to crack my knuckles AND INTELLECTUALLY SMACK AARON ABOVE UPSIDE HIS HEAD!!>>

aaron: “Well, I hope your knuckles are doing okay 'cause my head didn't feel a thing.”

I JUST SMACKED YOU NUMB! THE PAIN WILL COME BACK!


JA: <<What I am *NOT* inconclusive about is morally supporting both the Iraqi and Palestinian armed resistance>>

aaron: “including resistance that entails indiscriminate murder of civilians?”

JA: BE SPECIFIC. *What* civilians? The resistance is 0BVIOUSLY not indiscriminately murdering civilians.


JA: <<if not in every aspect *politically*, then, in principle, *militarily*>>

aaron: “i was about to say this is a distinction without a difference, but then it occurs to me that it's a distinction that means nothing.”

JA: It’s pretty obvious, but if you can’t figure it out, then whatever…


JA: <<or in their/our other means, such as non-cooperation, protests & civil disobedience, economic & cultural boycotts when applicable (as in the case of Israel), and other parallel int’l support (such as the call for conscientious objectors and refuseniks)>>

aaron: “why does this statement begin with an "or" instead of an "and"?”

JA: In this case the “or” does mean “and”: it means that I support either armed or peaceful means for the Iraqis to drive out the U.S. from colonizing their country.


aaron: “there are two possible answers to this question:
--your view is incoherent”

JA: --Or, three, that you’re obtuse or too damn white. If it seems incoherent, then it’s because you don’t understand being a member of a longtime actively oppressed group. I see Iraqis as another people of color being brutalized and oppressed by the U.S..


aaron: “--you're simply hedging.”

JA: Does it sound like I’ve been hedging about armed and active resistance to the U.S.? More people who feel the same should be explicitly and publicly saying so. Now anyone who is NOT in a sensitive employment position where they can’t speak openly who is not supporting the Iraqi resistance is a weak-ass progressive/leftist.

JA: If you want to hear a REAL leftist radio program that shares my view on racism and imperialism, listen to the "SLAVE REVOLT RADIO" program (GOOGLE IT) on Berkeley Liberation Radio micropower station, 6:30/6:35pm every Friday evening, or at other micropower stations, or every other Monday night at 11:pm audiostreamed online at KPFT (the Houston Pacifica Radio station), and archived online (google “Slave Revolt Radio”).


JA: <<Although Iraq is NOT as neatly all divided up (socially or geographically) into separate, distinct ethnic, cultural and religious groups as the U.S. govt/military and allied corporate media make it out to be, in the case of Iraq, this particular unity was notable for its very historical rarity.>>

aaron: “Apparently you're unaware of the large-scale trans-ethnic communist movement (albeit polluted with stalinism, not that that's a problem with you)...”

JA: THAT REMINDS ME, I NEED TO GET THE RECEIPT FOR MY CP DUES THIS WEEK.

JA: Look, I don’t know what 'Stalinism' “is” for you, or what you mean by it – other than maybe some pretextual, contrived excuse of yours for being politically weak-ass or lacking a pair when it really comes to opposing Western imperialism, because you “don’t want to see any VI~O~LENCE”.


Aaron: “...that existed in Iraq in the late 50s.”

JA: Yes, I am, but I don’t know the details, other than that it existed.


Aaron: “Hussein was contracted out by the US to help demolish this threat to anglo-american control of Iraq.”

JA: Yes, I’m basically aware of that item of history.


JA: <<Poor and working-class whites in the U.S. seem to take a lot more, psychologically, and certainly culturally, in common with filthy rich white-Americans than they do with poor and working-class Blacks, Latinos, or Asians.>>

aaron: “You realize how vague your "seem to take a..." statements are, don't you?”

JA: It’s called (sardonic) “UNDERSTATEMENT”. I guess that one has to be pretty literal with you, huh? You probably only like paintings of dogs or horses or barns, etc., huh? – nothing that isn’t literal and obvious.


aaron: “I wasn't talking about racial alienation in the United States, but with that said, here's my response:”

JA: You were talking about how people identify ‘on class lines’; so, I was telling you how they often do.


aaron: “--I don't deny that racial/ethnic/religious sectarianism can trump class interests;”

JA: that’s all I was pointing out -- sociocultural interests (like the psychological or legitimate need to preserve language, customs, religion, etc) or the sometimes all-to-sad reality.


Aaron: “however the existence of this sort of sectarianism doesn't mean that class interests aren't real”

JA: *WHO* denied it? But, in reality they are sometimes more abstract.


aaron: “--Perhaps you should take a day off from your endless, borderline anti-semitic baiting of zionists and join a picket line somewhere and see if you come away so self-assured in your claim that white workers are so "psychologically, and certainly culturally" similar to "filthy rich whites." ”

Perhaps you should either SPEND SOME TIME BEING *BLACK* OR otherwise OUT IN THE REAL WORLD -- INSTEAD OF JUST IN YOUR WHITE LEFTIST BUBBLES.


--For every modern-day instance of cultural reaction[?] among white workers I could show you an instance of the opposite.

AND I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT OFTEN HAPPENS TO “WORKER SOLIDARITY” IN MOST PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WHEN THE IMMEDIATE CRISIS IS OVER.

Aaron: “Indeed, the trend is toward a greater degree of racial-mixing with every passing year. Go to a predominately working class high school in the bay area and see how much mixing is going on.”

AS I SAID, YOU NEED TO GET OUTSIDE YOUR BAY AREA BUBBLE AND INTO MORE OF THE REAL WORLD.


JA: <<And *YES!* -- even from an impoverished Shi’ite point of view, culturally and psychologically. But, your assertion is factually wrong because I don’t think there *are* any (or hardly any) “filthy rich Shi’ites because they were *all* oppressed.>>

aaaron: “JA meet Ahmed Chalabi.”

WHERE DID HE SPEND MOST OF THE LAST 30 YEARS OF HIS LIFE!? WHO’S ASSET AND ON WHO’S PAYROLL WAS HE? YOUR EXAMPLE IS *IGNORANT*. (At any rate, I guess you couldn’t read “or hardly any” in my paragraph, so that someone like you couldn’t bring up *one* *singular* ignorant example of some *isolated* case of “a filthy rich Shi’ite”. You’d have brought up *one* example of “a filthy rich Black-American” during Jim Crow too, wouldn’t you have. Or, as one Black working-class friend of mine said, “White folks are always trying to make the *exception* the rule.”)


JA: <<And I don’t think that a filthy rich Shi’ite could become one, because to become filthy rich one would have to have connections to Saddam -- and he wasn’t likely to let any Shi’ite even become filthy rich.

aaron: “You betray an appalling ignorance about how elites maintain their power and prestige. Why do you think Sistani got to live?”

JA: I don’t know Sistani’s history or his background (is he filthy rich?), but so far, you are *NOT* convincing me that you have a sound hold on *REALITY*. If, as you worded it, “how elites maintain their power” and “Sistani got to live”, then he must have somehow had *CONNECTIONS* TO/WITH SADDAM!

*SHEEEESH*!!


JA: <<Impoverished members of an ethnic/cultural group might identify more with wealthy members of that same ethnic/cultural group than they do with impoverished members of another ethnic/cultural group, regardless of their actual economic interests.

aaron: “Yea, there were no fraggings during Vietnam. The grunts went along with the every order given to them. There was not a hint of class antagonism directed against commanding officers, particularly the ones who came straight from the college campuses to give orders. Never happened.”

*GODDAMN* YOU ARE SHALLOW!! I’m not carrying on this debate with you after this exchange because you are not worth any further of my time! (It’s like you’re an undergrad who wants to come to a graduate class, not having achived the pre-reqs!)

AND *WHAT* HAPPENED TO THOSE WHITES AND BLACKS AND BROWNS AFTER THEY HAD ENDURED, SURVIVED, OR ESCAPED THE IMMINENT/IMMEDIATE DANGER!!?

THEY RETURNED HOME TO A *RAMPANTLY* -- AND FOR THE MOST PART *COMPLACENTLY*, AND CONTENTEDLY, IF NOT HAPPILY -- SEGREGATED COUNTRY!!

YOU NEED TO GET YO’ HEAD OUTTA YO’ ASS, AND YO’ ASS OUT OF THE BAY AREA, AND LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR A WHILE.

TRY ANY OTHER METROPOLITAN AREA -- OR, ESPECIALLY, SMALL TOWN!!

GO FIND ALL THAT “MIXING” THAT YOU’RE CLAIMING!

IT’S NOT EXACTLY PERVASIVE EVEN IN THE BAY AREA!

GO TO EVEN SOME OF CALIFORNIA’S WORKING-CLASS WHITE CITIES, TOWNS, OR AREAS AND SEE HOW MUCH “MIXING” THERE IS.

OR JUST GO TO MOST OF CALIFORNIA’S BARS.

GO TO EVEN “LA-LA LAND”!

(THE ONLY REASON THAT I’M *NOT* GLAD THAT I GOT DIVERTED TO MORE IMMEDIATELY IMPORTANT INDYMEDIA POSTS ELSEWHERE, IS THAT I DIDN’T GET A CHANCE TO TEAR INTO YO’ ASS SOONER AND BE DONE WITH YOU HERE!)


JA: <<Furthermore, Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds (while hopefully they, indeed, don’t appear to be easily manipulated into the civil war that the U.S. keeps, ahem, *predicting*) do indeed have separate interests/demands, such as regional autonomy, religious interests, protection of language, culture, etc.>>

aaron: “Again, another ridiculously vague assertion (one without any supporting facts to back it up). What are "religious interests," JA? What does "regional autonomy" mean to the polyglot population of Baghdad?”


JUST *HOW* *DUM* *ARE* *YOU*!?

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED TO PRESERVE ONE’S RELIGION; THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED TO PRESERVE ONE’S POLITICAL INTERESTS OR CULTURE AS A MEMBER OF A MINORITY/ETHNIC GROUP!

EVEN IF WERE MARRIED TO AN ASIAN, OR FOR THAT MATTER A QUEBEQOIS, SHE MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN PRESERVING ASPECTS OF HER CULTURE (LIKE LITERATURE, MUSIC, FOODS, ETC.), LANGUAGE, HISTORY, HOSPITALITY PRACTICES, POSSIBLY RELIGION, ETC..


aaron: “In any case, I'm certain that a desire to have basic security, fulfilling work that is well-compensated, good housing, sanitation, education, and health care--all of which go to the heart of matters of CLASS--are every bit as much if not more of a concern to the working class and poor in Iraq as is your ill-defined list.”

“ILL-DEFINED” BECAUSE YOU ARE SO *STUPID* -- OR HELPLESSLY *WHITE*!!

THERE ARE *NEVER* ANY PURELY *ECONOMIC* INTERESTS AMONG PEOPLE OR BETWEEN ETHNIC GROUPS. IF YOU’RE AS SMART AS YOU PRETEND, THEN THAT WOULD BE *OBVIOUS* TO YOU!


JA: <<That reminds me: I forgot to pay this month’s RCP dues along with all the other Brothas!>>

aaron: “umm, okay. whatever, guy.”

JA: <<Blacks & Browns -- and even the Red -- has gone marching off to *every* American war hoping that he will finally be let into “The (White) American (Man's) dream”. Those Blacks & Browns just don't realize that it doesn't include *them*!>>

aaron: “Assuming this was all there is to say on the matter (which it isn't), why do you expend so much time arguing against those who say killing for the "white man" isn't in the interests of working class folks generally?”

BECAUSE I *DON’T* SPEND SO MUCH TIME “SAYING” THAT. I SPEND TIME SAYING THAT IT’S NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF *BLACK* FOLKS!!

AND IT’S ALSO NOT IN THE INTEREST OF BLACK FOLKS, NOT TO HAVE WHITE FOLKS SUCCESSFULLY OPPRESSING OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR – WHETHER IT’S IN IRAQ OR PALESTINE.

AND ANYONE WHO SUCCESSFULLY THROWS OFF OR DEFEATS EUROPEAN/AMERICAN IMPERIALIST/COLONIALIST OPPRESSION ANYWHERE, HELPS -- AND HELPS BLACK FOLKS -- DEFEAT IT RIGHT HERE AT HOME IN AMERICA.

NOW IF WORKING-CLASS WHITE FOLKS WANT TO GO KILL – AND DIE TRYING TO KILL -- OTHER WHITE FOLKS OVER SOME BULLSHIT (AS IN WWI), THEN THAT’S THEIR BUSINESS.

OF COURSE, *ANYONE* WHO TRULY WANTS TO OPPOSE OPPRESSION, INJUSTICE, AND ETHNIC-SUPREMACY -- AND TRULY RESPECTS OTHER PEOPLE’S SOCIOCULTURE -- REGARDLESS OF COLOR -- IS MY BROTHA AND SISTA

-- AND, AS SUCH, WE CAN EXTEND A HAND TO EACH OTHER IN THE WAY THAT MALCOLM X DEFINED “RESPECT” AND IN THE WAY THAT MLK DEFINED “LOVE”.


Are you that indebted to some crypto-maoist/nationalist ideology?

THAT REMINDS ME, I FORGOT TO PICK UP THE RECEIPT FOR MY DUES AT THE RCP AND THE BLACK MAU-MAU.


JA: <<And what do you think supports a Black/Brown working-class’s, middle-class’s, affluent’s, or even working-class-poor’s fronting of a, shiny SUV lifestyle?>>

aaron : “JA meet Visa/MasterCard”

AARON, MEET YOUR SUPERFICIALITY AND STUPIDITY.


JA: <<or their ability to buy relatively cheap clothes and goods (made in China, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.)>>

aaron: “JA meet the new edition of Air Jordans, that'll be $130”

SEE ABOVE.


JA: <<I talked to a working-class Black male discharged soldier, a grunt with buddies then still over in Iraq, when the Iraqi resistance was just heating up. I told him, "Looks like the Iraqis don't want us over there ripping off their resources and selling off their infrastructure." He replied, "We just have to trust in the Lorrrd..." And *who’s* “Lord” do you think he’s trusting in?>>

aaron: “I'd be more interested in hearing your response than in conjecting about the nature of his superstitions. Judging from this thread, I'd guess you told him "Well, bro, this war is bad but it's in your interest, so go to it!" ”

YYYEP! THAT’S WHAT I *TOLD* HIM!!


aaron earlier: “Hey JA, get your head out of your ass! Where the fuck have you been?”

JA: <<I’ve been *BLACK*>>

aaron: “Good one.”

JA: <<Where's *YOUR* theory about working-class white male (including Democrat crossover) *Republican* voters?>>

aaron: “In lieu of a class response to declining conditions--something that neither you nor the Democrats offer or have any interest in developing--some white workers apparently derive more satisfaction in sating their social conservativsm than in doing what exactly? Vote Democrat?”

FINALLY A SIGN OF A *PULSE* IN YOUR BRAIN.


aaron: “But even more relevant is the fact that less than half of eligible voters in the US even bother to vote, and we all know
that a disproportionately high percentage of these non-voters are.....WORKING CLASS!!”

BECAUSE FOR MOST PEOPLE, IN THEIR IMMEDIATE LIVES -- OR EVEN ON ISSUES OF WAR AND PEACE, OR THE WAR BUDGET ITSELF (AND IT’S TYPICALLY BEEN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY THAT IS USUALLY BAITED BY THE REPUBS INTO SENDING THE WORKING-CLASS TO WAR) -- THEY SEE THAT IT DOESN’T REALLY MATTER MUCH *WHO’S* PRESIDENT.

CLINTON PUT BLACK FOLKS IN PRISON, JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS PUT BLACK FOLKS IN PRISON.

DO YOU THINK CLINTON SAID, “YOU KNOW, THE WAR ON DRUGS IS DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTING THE BLACK COMMUNITY; I’M GOING TO CHANGE THAT”?

DO YOU THINK THAT CLINTON SAID, “YOU KNOW, I NEED TO SPEAK OUT ON ALL THIS POLICE BRUTALITY”?

DO YOU THINK THAT CLINTON SAID, “WE SPEND BILLIONS ON THE WAR BUDGET; I’M GOING TO TAKE A FEW HUNDRED MILLION AND SPEND IT ON BLACK PUBLIC SCHOOLS”?

NO, CLINTON LAMBASTED AN EDUCATED BLACK WOMAN (SISTER SOULJAH) AND ABANDONED ANOTHER EVEN MORE HIGHLY EDUCATED ONE WHO WAS A LONGTIME FAMILY FRIEND (LANI GUINEAR) TO BOOST HIS CAMPAING POLL NUMBERS.

WHEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HAVE -- OR HAVE THE ILLUSION OF -- SOMETHING *GENUINE* TO VOTE FOR, THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE TOLD TO GO VOTE: THEY LINE UP FOR HOURS AROUND THE BLOCK!


JA: <<When you see meaningful throngs of those Walmart workers politically active, organized and/or out in the streets in protest marches (outside of the bubble of the immediate Bay Area, if that), when you see Walmart workers uniting with Iraqi workers, or Palestinian workers, or Columbian workers, or even Chinese workers, gi’ me a call>>

aaaron: “No, your line will be tied-up jaw-boning with zionists on the internet.”

AND *WHAT* THE HELL ARE ***YOU*** DOING HERE!? -- INSTEAD OF OUT ON SOME PICKETT OR PROTEST LINE!

I’M DIDACTICALLY SHOWING HOW SOME [SOCIOPOLITICALLY] WHITE *FOOLS* CAN BE WHITE *FOOLS*! – SO THAT *OTHER* WHITES DON’T HAVE TO BE WHITE FOOLS

--AND SO THAT WE ALL DEVELOP THE SOCIOCULTURAL RESPECT THAT WILL ALLOW US TO ACHIEVE OUR ESPOUSED LEFTIST GOALS.

(INCIDENTALLY, MY WHITE HOUSEMATES WOULDN’T GIVE YOU THE TIME O’ DAY -- AND NOW I MORE CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHY.

BUT, AS LONG AS I KICKED MY FOOT HALF-WAY UP YOUR ASS, I’M GONNA FINISH JAMING IT ALL THE WAY.)


aaron: “BTW: I didn't see *you* out on the pickets when the pre-dominately non-white hotel work-force in SF was locked-out two months ago.”

LOOK, I’M A **FREE** BLACK MAN: I DON’T ACCOUNT FOR MY TIME AND POLITICAL ACTIVITES TO *YOU* -- ESPECIALLY A WHITE MAN!

YOU DON’T KNOW *WHAT* I DO.


aaron: “In any event, you're (again) confusing the state of mobilization of workers with their, dare i say it, objective interests. I could just as easily--and as INaptly--argue against your support for the Iraqi resistance by pointing out that the vast majority of Iraqi's aren't fighting the invaders.”

HAVE YOU HEARD THAT GUERRILLA WARS AND INSURGENCIES CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE/AREA/COMMUNITY?

HAVE YOU HEARD THAT RESISTANCE -- OR THE SUPPORT FOR RESISTANCE -- DOESN’T *ONLY* TAKE PLACE BY PICKING UP ARMS?

HAVE YOU HEARD THAT RESISTANCE CAN BE NONVIOLENT AND EVEN PASSIVE?

HAVE YOU HEARD THAT MORE PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY SYMPATHIZE WITH THE RESISTANCE, THAN ACTUALLY TAKE PART (OUT OF FEAR OR PERSONAL WEAKNESS)?

YOU DON’T KNOW THIS BECAUSE YOU’VE **NEVER** PARTICIPATED IN ANY RESISTANCE AS A MEMBER OF AN OPPRESSED MINORITY (PERSON OF COLOR).

RESISTANCE TO YOU IS JUST SOMETHING YOU *THEORIZE* ABOUT AND DO ON YOUR **DAY OFF**!


JA: <<As one Mexican worker put it, most working-class or even working-poor people -- let alone the middle-class -- in America have a life that is considered *RICH* in many so-called Third World countries: "Your own car and a decent, even if small, clean apartment on an upper level, with some comfortable furniture, a nice TV and *air-conditioning*?: that would be considered *rich* in many poor Mexican neighborhoods/villages.">>

aaron: “While I question whether these things are the sole standard for determining standard of living, I don't dispute that there are big difference between the living standards found in the US and the "Third World." But it's a big leap to say that therefore the working class in the US categorically”

>Well, you want to sleigh-of-hand slip in a word that *of course* I didn’t use. There are parts of Black/Brown/Red America that are almost “undeveloped/developing world”.


benefits in net terms from imperialism, particularly as this system's decay is becoming more and more inescapeable.

>If it was so inescapable, then even working-class people wouldn’t be trying to buy SUV’s or $150 athletic shoes.

>But, it’s also inescapable that, in general, most poor people in this country are much better off than the poor people that Western imperialism exploits in so-called “Third World” countries. Even poor people in this country have numerous pairs of shoes and change of clothes.And working-class people in this country would *definitely* be considered rich in most “Third World” countries. Now, does that mean that poor -- or even many working-class -- people in this country live in any particular economic dignity?: NO! Does it mean that they share much at all -- let alone equitably -- in the wealth of the nation?: NO!


<<Aaron earlier: "And then you can get back to cheering reactionary fundamentalists who kill civilians with abandon in far away lands!">>

<<JA: “And you can go back to holding your breath -- just waiting......... -- until (as Arundhati Roy put it) "the perfect revolution" comes.”>>

aaron: “One: I have never said I'm opposed to any and all acts of armed resistance to the US take-over of Iraq. Find where I ever said any such thing. You won't be able to.”

>You never said that you weren’t – or that you *supported* armed resistance to the U.S. take-over of Iraq. You mindlessly -- indiscriminately -- went on about “the indiscriminate killing of civilians” (approx if not exact quote) resistance AND THEN ATTACK ME -- FOR SOME *HIDDEN* *PERSONAL* REASON OF YOURS -- AS SUPPORTING THE INDISCRIMINATE KILLING OF CIVILIANS.

SO, I PUT MY *FOOT* UP YO’ ASS!!


Aaron: “Unlike you, however, I am unwilling to be interpreted as IN ANY WAY sympathetic to Islamist formations or armed groups that kill civilians indiscriminitely.”

THERE YOU GO AGAIN…!!

WHAT’S MORE, YOU’RE *LYING*.

SO, YOU’RE BEING *INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST* TO PICK AT SOME UNARTICULATED PET BONE OF YOURS.


aaron: “Two: How does your (incoherent) cyber-support for the armed resistance in Iraq make any difference to the dynamic in Iraq? How does it help in the struggle against US imperialism? Be specific.”

NOT GOING TO. IF YOUR TWISTED QUESTION NEEDS AN ANSWER, THEN YOU CAN’T BE HELPED AND I DON’T HAVE TIME TO PERSONALLY BABY YOU THROUGH AN ANALYSIS, HOWEVER BRIEF.

AND BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO DEAL WITH ANYMORE GRADE SCHOOL REBUTTALS/QUESTIONS FROM YOU, IN A ‘GRADUATE SCHOOL’ ANALYSIS.

IF WE’RE BOTH AT SOME *PUBLIC* POLITICAL LECTURE/PANEL EVENT AND YOU WANT TO BRING UP YOUR ATTACK, THEN I’LL JAM MY FOOT UP YOUR ASS AGAIN -- *PUBLICLY* -- AND *THEN* YOU’LL FIND OUT!

LOOK, IF *YOU* DON’T WANT TO SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE THEN *DON’T*! I AIN’T GOT NO GUN TO YOUR HEAD!


JA: << “But don’t worry if your face starts turning blue -- I’m sure it’ll happen any minute!??”>>

aaron: “You know what they say about sarcasm don't you?”

NOPE!


JA: <<”But, in the meantime, nothing *else* at all is going to happen until the U.S. imperialist military occupation is driven *OUT*. (Or until Israelis can't count on killing *Palestinians* with abandon.) Just because I support *that* doesn’t mean that I am a devotee of Islamic fundamentalism.”>>

aaron: “Translation: You support blowing up public buses in Israel and think it helps the struggle for Palestinean self-determination, BUT you have no time for Islamic fundamentalism otherwise. HA!”

OH, I SEE!!: A *LIBERAL* ZIONIST!!

SO, *THAT’S* YOUR HIDDEN PERSONAL BONE TO PICK WITH ME!!

IS THAT LIKE A LIBERAL NAZI!?

WELL, I JAM MY FOOT UP THE ASSES OF LIBERAL ZIONISTS TOO.


aaron: << "What we need to be doing is to look for and reach out to whatever progressive forces are struggling in Iraq and show solidarity with these. At the end of the day our fight for freedom is a global fight - or it is no fight at all."

JA: <<”Can you string together any more of a series of meaningless cliches in a *single* paragraph…???”>>

aaron: “Well, I agree that that is somewhat meaningless, although not as meaningless as your insistence on supporting armed resistance in Iraq and Palestinean as if it matters what you have to say about it from the comfort of your "imperialist" furniture!”

LOOK, IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE ‘*STOMACH*’…,

IF YOU’RE TOO *WEAK* TO EVEN SUPPORT *SERIOUS* AND *REAL* ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST EMPIRE…,

IF YOU’RE TOO *LILLY-LIVERED*…,

IF YOU THINK THAT THE IRAQIS CAN MERELY *ASK* THE IMPERIALIST “PLEASE, SUR, MAY WE HAVE OUR COUNTRY BACK?…,”
IF YOU ONLY WANT TO SUPPORT ARMED STRUGGLE IN THE *ABSTRACT*, BUT NOT IN THE *REAL*, WORLD…,

THEN *DON’T* SUPPORT IT!!

IN THE MEANTIME, AS THEY SAY IN RAP, GET OFF MY JOCK!


aaron: “However, you dumbass, I DIDN'T WRITE THAT COMMENT.”

BUT YOU *COULD* HAVE AND MIGHT AS *WELL* HAVE!!


Aaron: “Go check”.

I POSTED A COPY *CORRECTING* THE MISTAKEN ATTRIBUTION AFTER THE ORIGINAL WAS MYSTERIOUSLY DELETED. THE ORIGINAL GOT REPOSTED AND THE CORRECTED COPY DELETED.

(BTW, “DUM*B*ASS” IS *BIGOTTED*, MR. SENSITIVITY & WORLDLY.)


JA: <<Look, you can’t come half-steppin’ and bootleggin’ your way to *me* and expect not to get intellectually whopped upside yo’ head.>>

aaron: “Yes I can.”

NOPE! YOU’RE “OUT OF BUSINESS” WITH ME!!

THAT’S ALL OF MY TIME THAT YOU GET FOR THIS.

I AIN’T GOT TIME FO’ POLITICAL HALF-STEPPERS AND BOOTLEGGERS.


JA: <<Maybe we should add to your string of cliches that “rainbows are pretty and ice cream is nice”, while we all join hands and sing! And then we can all close our eyes, click our heels three times, and say, “we’re not in a capitalist world anymore, we’re not in a capitalist world anymore, the global anti-capitalist revolution is just around the corner!”>>

Aaron: “I note that the only "cliche" you attribute to me is based on a comment I DIDN'T MAKE.”

Aaron: “Now, how 'bout that, *foolie*?”

TALK TO THE HANNND...!!

As any reasonably sane and mentally balenced individual can see, it was AARON who decisively won this debate. JA is as usual forced to his threats of physical violence, his obsessive self-congratulation, his predictable race-baiting etc. He is completely incapable of making a logical and intelligent point. It is clearly well past time that he was strapped to a gurney and given shock therapy. He could not possibly be any more of a mental vegetable than he is already.

To JA --- But don't feel bad you did kick bell hook's ass.

first off, does anyone really take JA's comments about "whoppin" people and "shoving" his "foot" up someone's "ass" seriously??

it's called humor, of the Lenny Bruce/Richard Pryor/Eddie Murphy variety
(sorry, JA, no doubt as someone knowledgeable about colonial and post-colonialist theory, you've already tagged me as a cultural imperialist given my weakness for classification)

anyway, you don't have to like it, but it's pretty odd if you can't recognize it, and it's really hilarious to see these straight, sour responses like the one from "give him a lobotomy"

as for the dispute between aaron and JA, it strikes me as being like one of those pre-fight routines by Muhammed Ali when he ridiculed Joe Frazier or George Foreman

in other words, the disagreement isn't nearly as great as you'd think

here's two big issues I see: (1) aaron says that the Iraqi resistance indiscriminately kills civilians, and JA says that they don't

I tend to side with JA on this one, but it is a grotesque comparative question

I don't recall whether it was Patrick Cockburn, or some others, but I have seen several reports in recent months that have described the resistance as targeting their victims very consciously, while US forces are known for shooting first and asking questions later, and, in one of the most underreported stories in recent months, we are relying increasingly upon air strikes

with that said, there are groups within the resistance that I do not philosophically support, but, if given a choice between having them run Iraq, or US forces doing it, I would still choose them because they are indigenous

and, as Tariq Ali has noted, the Iraqi resistance has done the rest of the world a great favor by discrediting the neo-conservative project, and stalling American preemptive actions against . . Iran? Syria? Venezuela?

Iraqis are on the front line of resistance against the American empire, and don't think that the rest of the world doesn't recognize it

the second big issue is the one that really seems to get aaron's goat: JA's criticism of the American working class as being pro-imperialist

as someone who grew up with this background, I understand what aaron is saying about their personal circumstances, and emotionally relate to it very strongly, but I have to honestly say that they do support Bush and his wars, and the election was irrefutable proof of it, because, when they voted, they voted predominately for Bush

(for an excellent discussion of this phenomenom, see the Thomas Mertes article in the Nov/Dec issue of the New Left Review about the Thomas Frank book, "What's the Matter with Kansas", where Frank describes the working class abandonment of the Democrats in Wichita, significantly because of NAFTA)

and, of course, this is nothing new, as the British working class avidly supported the liberal imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th Century, as it did throughout Western Europe and the US

there are signs that dissatisfaction with the war may changing middle and lower middle class attitudes, but it is still too early to say that they have turned against the war, or that they will do anything other than fall for the same dishonest manipulations again and support a war with Iran

you can respect the struggle of working people to survive in California's real estate bubble economy even if you disagree with their support for Bush's preemptive wars

--Richard

JA's response to my rebuttal was filled with his trademark mix of self-aggrandizing hot air, name-dropping, shameless race-baiting, straw-man arguments, and witless rhetorical dodges. Some things never change.

Good going, JA.

I heard you on the radio today but I lost your phone number. Call me when you get a chance.

Yeah, good going JA!

Usually I like your posts.This one is clueless-- not to mention your pathetic, white doormatt, kissup to JA.

The core (at this moment) of the Iraqi "resistance" doesn't kill indiscrimantely. They kill discrimantely. They kill those opposed to their agenda which is too maintain their old position as the ex-baathist priveleged minority. They were the tortureres and the executioneers under Saadam. They were quit effective in killing off Iraqi leftists and all other opponents of Sadaam's sick regime. They're the majority of the resistance.

The next biggest group are the religious fascists who do kill indiscrimantly. If suicide car bombers aren't indiscriminate killers-- I don't know what the fuck is.

Probably a slight majority of white working class people support the war (and many very thinnly). They don't support the war for cheaper gas or some base material gain. They support it because they believe the lies Bush told them about the "war on terror". Its our job to expose the lies and to turn them against the war particulary those in the military and their families. JA is on another planet so he will be useless, if not an obstacle, in this task.

My preceding post was written before other responses to JA's post had registered on the screen. So..

First off, I need to say that I'm floored that Richard would mention the persevarating, foaming-at-the-mouth JA in the same breath as greats such as Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor.

At best, JA is funny in spite of himself.

But as to *political* content, let me say:

1) I've never said that all "insurgents" in Iraq kill civilians indiscriminately. Indeed, I readily accept that the US has vastly greater amounts of Iraqi blood on its hands then all the insurgents combined. I merely asked JA if he extends support to those insurgents that *do* kill civilians indiscriminately, and he responded that there are no such insurgents. On this point, I agree with Travis--if car bombings in busy urban districts don't qualify as indiscriminate killing of civilians, then I don't know what does.

When I asked JA to explain to me why it was so consequential that people in the US support the insurgents--specifically, how it changes the dynamic in Iraq--he responded by saying that no one was forcing me to support them!

After all that bluster about being a fear-less rebel he couldn't even summon a response to a pretty fucking obvious question related to the issue at hand.

2) I've never claimed that the working class in the US is revolutionary nor have I denied that there are plenty of working class reactionaries. The crux of my disagreement with the fundamentally nationalist/maoist JA has to do with my view that the working class (as such) does not benefit from the Iraq war and that the working class, acting collectively, is uniquely positioned to amass power against our rulers. JA believes that the American working class is bought-off by imperialism (period, end of subject) and has no class interest in opposing this or any other American-led war, so he instead derives great satisfaction in writing all-caps screeds calling for military support for the insurgents, an endeavor which he can't even justify when asked to do so.

One last (related) thing: I believe that Richard's depiction of working class political sentiments is not altogether accurate. First off, like I said previously, less than half of eligible voters bothers to vote and we know that those who do are disproportionately of higher economic/class status. So, even if we assume that half of all working class voters went for the more viscious of the two business parties, that's still a pretty damn small percentage of the working class that both bothered to vote and pulled the lever for Bush (less than 20% surely). Of *those*, there's reason to believe that a fair number voted Republican for reasons other than Iraq, and possibly a good number even oppose the Iraq war.

Suffice to say, I wouldn't be so quick to write the working class off as a collective and self-conscious agent for change (not that there isn't a lot more that could be said on the matter).

"reader", (ref., "hey aaron", Monday, Feb. 07, 2005 at 10:46 PM) is referring to "aaron aarons" not "aaron". They are two different persons.

THANKS FOR THE PROPS, "reader"!

Travis Monday, Feb. 07, 2005 at 10:01 PM

"To JA --- But don't feel bad you did kick bell hook's ass."


BY ALL MEANS, DO SEE:

A Menace to Society! Or How An Uppity Black Man Got Banned From Cody’s Bookstore, Berkeley
by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/09/1695693_comment.php#1695931

AND

RIGHT HOOK AT THE BELL!:
BELL HOOKS' BLACK MALE-BASHING
by Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA

pretty version (fancier format and more easily readable):
http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_guest_2.html

complete version (one add'l paragraph, pgh 5: "On Forum..."):
http://www.ishmaelreedpub.com/articles/anderson2.htm

Travis: "Why don't you join up with JA, the worlds worker party, friends of Saddam"

That reminds me, I've got to pay this month's Worker's World Pary dues and put in a call to my friend Saddam in his secret subterranean palace control center!!

(Pssst!: The U.S. has his drugged, dazed, and dumped set-up *double* from that hole!! The *real* Saddam is always impecably dressed and groomed! He'd *never* let himself be caught looking scraggly!!)

lobotomized: "JA is a thoroughly deranged and diseased individual. As any reasonably sane and mentally balenced individual can see, it was AARON who decisively won this debate."

then he _didn't_.

[(1) I've never said that all "insurgents" in Iraq kill civilians indiscriminately. Indeed, I readily accept that the US has vastly greater amounts of Iraqi blood on its hands then all the insurgents combined. I merely asked JA if he extends support to those insurgents that *do* kill civilians indiscriminately, and he responded that there are no such insurgents. On this point, I agree with Travis--if car bombings in busy urban districts don't qualify as indiscriminate killing of civilians, then I don't know what does.

When I asked JA to explain to me why it was so consequential that people in the US support the insurgents--specifically, how it changes the dynamic in Iraq--he responded by saying that no one was forcing me to support them!

After all that bluster about being a fear-less rebel he couldn't even summon a response to a pretty fucking obvious question related to the issue at hand.

2) I've never claimed that the working class in the US is revolutionary nor have I denied that there are plenty of working class reactionaries. The crux of my disagreement with the fundamentally nationalist/maoist JA has to do with my view that the working class (as such) does not benefit from the Iraq war and that the working class, acting collectively, is uniquely positioned to amass power against our rulers. JA believes that the American working class is bought-off by imperialism (period, end of subject) and has no class interest in opposing this or any other American-led war, so he instead derives great satisfaction in writing all-caps screeds calling for military support for the insurgents, an endeavor which he can't even justify when asked to do so.
One last (related) thing: I believe that Richard's depiction of working class political sentiments is not altogether accurate. First off, like I said previously, less than half of eligible voters bothers to vote and we know that those who do are disproportionately of higher economic/class status. So, even if we assume that half of all working class voters went for the more viscious of the two business parties, that's still a pretty damn small percentage of the working class that both bothered to vote and pulled the lever for Bush (less than 20% surely). Of *those*, there's reason to believe that a fair number voted Republican for reasons other than Iraq, and possibly a good number even oppose the Iraq war.
Suffice to say, I wouldn't be so quick to write the working class off as a collective and self-conscious agent for change (not that there isn't a lot more that could be said on the matter).]

As contemptible as their tactics are, it is understood that even the Islamic fundamentalists use violence in a more targeted way than US military forces.

Invariably, suicide bombings take police at venues like police stations, or government facilities associated with the occupation. Passersby do get killed and wounded as well, and the secular aspects of the resistance have rightly condemned them, as has Sadr as well. But, by and large, the fundamentalists know exactly who they are targeting, they are not sitting off bombs at random.

If only the secular armed resistance in the Sunni areas constituted Baathist bitter enders like Travis and Rumsfeld keep saying, even the most cursory examination of the media coverage from Iraq reveals the contrary, with, for example, extensive tribal participation in places like Falluja.

Your dispute with JA about the nature of the US working class is an old one. Your nuanced analysis about the political passivity of workers is accurate (for example, I saw something recently that indicated that semi skilled white males in the South have almost abandoned the political system, which is consistent with my personal experience when I visit), but I still tend to believe that they remain, at best, passive, and at worst, complicit, incapable of seeing beyond the consumerist cocoon in which most of us live. There is nothing exceptional in this, as it is true of most Americans.

I can't help but recall the civil rights movement, which is a good metaphor for this situation. While the record is certainly mixed, a lot of unions resisted it, and I tend to believe that most unions, and most working class whites, on balance, opposed desegregation, especially in their own workplaces. Similarly, I believe that most, in this instance, whether they vote or not, are still reflexively swayed by Bush's appeals to historic American nationalism. That such support is against their economic interest, as you assert, is a great tragedy, but there is an interesting explanation of it in the Mertes' article about the Franks' book ("What's the Matter with Kansas?") in the NLR.

As with civil rights, there appears to be more of a racial divide than a class divide on the war: predictably,as people of color supported civil rights more than whites (and still do), people of color support the war to a lesser degrees than do whites. And, in both instances, there are good economic, class based arguments for the "progressive" position. Just as there were back in the late 19th and early 20th Century in Europe, when the working classes opted for liberal imperialism.

Do American workers constitute a force for change? Well, any group does, but how? As Mertes and Frank observe, the Democratic Party makes no attempt to organize them, and has abandoned them to the global neoliberal economic system. NAFTA was a social disaster and we are far from recovering from it. Frank apparently has a compelling discussion of the city of Wichita which was transformed overnight from a working class Democratic congressional bastion into one with the wealthy neighborhoods voting for the Democratic incumbent (Dan Glickman), and the working class neighborhoods voting for a fundamentalist Republican. Right now, amongst white workers, the struggle seems to be between Bush global fundamentalism, and Buchanan's isolationism.

I understand that you aren't talking about the Democrats as a force for social change, but, it is still pertinent to note that one completely ignored aspect of this dilemma is that Bush is actually less free trade oriented than the Democrats, with his appointees commonly taking unilateralist stances in trade negotiations, and working class people can legitimately draw the conclusion that, given two bad alternatives, than Bush is actually a little better. I don't agree, but it's not absurd.

Perhaps, the war and Bush's frontal assault on Social Security will provide a combustible mix for a new working class politics (leaving aside all the complex social and racial issues subsumed in the concept), and sweep aside the corporate sponsored fundamentalism of the right, but, for now, I am an agnostic.

--Richard

Even though I'm a rather proficient touch typist, I still only have so much time for those manifest fools.


"Invariably, suicide bombings take police at venues like police stations, or government facilities associated with the occupation. Passersby do get killed and wounded as well, and the secular aspects of the resistance have rightly condemned them, as has Sadr as well. But, by and large, the fundamentalists know exactly who they are targeting, they are not sitting off bombs at random."

As anyone (except the braindead, including closet zionists) could see. If the resistance just ran around randomly placing high explosive bombs any ole place like: random people's homes, random peope's shops, hospitals, grade schools with children (when not used for polling places), etc., the resistance would not get any support (including mine).

It reminds me of when the corp media accused the Seattle protesters of "random violence" in particular "random vandalism". Of course, it was not "random": the vandalism that occured happened to Starbucks, McDonald, corp banks, etc.. Those particular direct action protesters didn't attack mom & pop Asian take out restaurants; they didn't attack people's homes; they didn't graffiti residential windows when people weren't home; they didn't terrorize pedestrians.

Or, it reminds me about how the media (and clueless whites) run around during riots talking about how "the Blacks are INDISCRIMINATELY BURNING THEIR *OWN* NEIGHBORHOODS DOWN", when the Blacks aren't just randomly burning down people's houses/apartments/cars, and there's NOTHING or almost nothing that they do *OWN* in "their own neighborhood". They target so-called "big box" or chain department/drug stores or foreigner-own small businesses and shops.

(And I *opposed* targeting Korean shop-owners in the L.A. uprising, even though some of those Koreans were racist, in major part because the same greater forces that create or sustain ghettos in the first place, forced those Korean out of Korea and into middlemen smalll retail positions and someplace they *really* didn't want to have to be -- with no cross-cultural understanding -- in the 2nd place.)

The insurgents are, of course, targeting the Americans (personel or building sites) and anyone who is collaborating or otherwise working with the Americans. If I were an Iraqi, my first personal business would be to stay away from any venue (headquarters, military sites, Iraqi police stations, open-air markets catering to Americans, sign-up lines, etc.) having to do with the Americans: the resistance seems to be making that quite clear. (The one time a bunch of Iraqi school-aged children were killed in a bomb blast, it was because the American soldiers, at some American propaganda ceremony, were handing out candy -- hoping to lure and use Iraqi children as HUMAN SHIELDS!! -- something they no doubt learned from the Israelis, using Palestinians.)


"Your [aaron's] nuanced analysis about the political passivity of workers is accurate"

Except that it wasn't particularly nuanced -- since he thinks that people's views come down to the purely economic, and ignores ethnic chauvinism or the role of racism. It was I that pointed out that it was more "nuanced" -- like various social, cultural, ethnologically-/ethnocentrically-sectarian, and even religious, etc., interests.


"white males in the South have almost abandoned the political system"

But, that doesn't mean that they don't have political *views* -- however chauvinistic (ethnically, nationalistically, and genderwise), narrow-minded, and disaffected (since the Civil & Voting Rights Act was passed in 1964 & '65, and the demogogic manipulation of them over things like what passes for "integration" or affirmative action, even as Republicans are shipping their jobs overseas).


"but I still tend to believe that they remain, at best, passive, and at worst, complicit, incapable of seeing beyond the consumerist cocoon in which most of us live. There is nothing exceptional in this, as it is true of most Americans."

Which is exactly what I said (in my own words, of course). But blinded closet Zionists can't see that grinding their own hidden personal grudge axe.


"I can't help but recall the civil rights movement..."

I hadn't read ahead, but...: There you go! We're right on the same analytical page here.


"the Mertes' article about the Franks' book ("What's the Matter with Kansas?") in the NLR"

I won't interupt myself and check back up to your previous posts right now, but if you didn't post the URL for this (if it's online), could you?


"Do American workers constitute a force for change? Well, any group does, but how?"

That's exactly the question. Aaron seems to think that one can just say so and wave some magic wand.

Let's see: <<aaron: nationalist/maoist *JAyyyy...* ... [OH! *HERE* IT IS!] ...and that the working class, acting collectively, is uniquely positioned to amass power against our rulers.>>

Let's put that right up there with << "What we need to be doing is to look for and reach out to whatever progressive forces are struggling in Iraq and show solidarity with these. At the end of the day our fight for freedom is a global fight - or it is no fight at all.">>

And what did aaron say about *that*?: <<aaron: “Well, I agree that that is somewhat meaningless>>

Maybe we should just add to *aarons* platitude that "“rainbows are pretty and ice cream is nice”.


"NAFTA [ -- A DEMOCRAT *&* REPUBLICAN -- A *BI*PARTISAN PROGRAM -- UNDER *ANY* NAME -- EXPORTING AMERICAN JOBS AND IN SEARCH OF EXPLOITING FOREIGN POVERTY AT '25-50-CENTS/HR' WAGES THAT NOT EVEN THE *POOR* IN *POOR* COUNTRIES CAN LIVE ON !! -- ] was a social disaster and we are far from recovering from it. Frank apparently has a compelling discussion of the city of Wichita which was transformed overnight from a working class Democratic congressional bastion into one with the wealthy neighborhoods voting for the Democratic incumbent (Dan Glickman), and the working class neighborhoods voting for a fundamentalist Republican."

Amazing. I went to buy Frank's book one night in by busy schedule, but the bookstore had closed already. (Hmmm..., maybe I'll buy it for one of my housemates! Her birthday *is* coming up soon... [Smile...] Ha-ha-ha!)

And neither are all the do-gooder liberal/progressive organizations (or for that matter the Bay Area leftist organizations/groups) going to military towns (or the no-name towns that the military recruits from) to even *educate* (hold panel teach-ins and dialogues, let alone organize) the cannon fodder for American imperialism and Halliburton's/Bechtel's/Chevron's/etc riches.


"Bush is actually less free trade oriented than the Democrats, with his appointees commonly taking unilateralist stances in trade negotiations"

Well, *Buchanan* probably is. But the rest might be talkin' the talk, but they ain't walkin' the walk: Repubs are just as much interested in "penetrating markets" and cheap overseas defenseless labor and exporting jobs, as are the Dems working for *their* corporate sponsors.


"working class people can legitimately draw the conclusion that, given two bad alternatives, than Bush is actually a little better."

Because, as Frank said, at least the Repubs are going to keep gays from getting married -- 'just like ('yech'!) *US*!!' The Repubs will let us keep our assualt guns. The Repubs will let God into our public schools and kick Darwin out! The Repubs will keep women at home and in their place (pregnant, whether they like it or not). The Repubs will kick Black mothers off welfare. The Repubs will keep 'Suge Knight' in prison and keep 'Snoop Doggy Dog' from moving in right next door to *US*!! The Repubs will ban gangsta rap on TV!


"Perhaps, the war and Bush's frontal assault on Social Security will provide a combustible mix for a new working class politics (leaving aside all the complex social and racial issues subsumed in the concept), and sweep aside the corporate sponsored fundamentalism of the right, but, for now, I am an agnostic."

You see, even according to Richard's analysis (assuming I am not mistaken), a new "working-class solidarity" will likely have little to do with the war (certainly not any potential success, and not even its failure).


IF SOME REPUB *OR* DEM SAID, "WAIT A MINUTE!: LET'S *STOP* THE WAR AND SPEND THE *EXTRA* $200 BILLION -- THAT WE'LL SAVE -- ON DECENT SCHOOLS, SCHOLARSHIPS, AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMS SO THAT BLACK, BROWN (AND RED) PEOPLE AREN'T COMMITING CRIMES TERRORIZING WHITE FOLKS AND AREN'T DISPROPORTIONATELY IN PRISON...

WHITE WORKERS WOULD START *LYNCHINGS* AGAIN!!


The only reason the war is being more widely disapproved of, or even more widely questioned, is that *DEAD & MAIMED BODIES* ARE COMING HOME -- THE ONLY THING THAT WILL HALT EMPIRE/IMPERIALISM (FOR A WHILE) OR COLONIALISM ... AND MAYBE ALLOW SOME JUST SOCIETIES TO EVENTUALLY DEVELOP IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ELSEWHERE IN THE THIRD WORLD.

AND *THAT'S* WHY I SUPPORT THE IRAQI -- AND PALESTINIAN -- ARMED RESISTANCE!

http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR26402.shtml

"Republican Proletariat" by Thomas Mertes

and, no, you're not wrong

any working class progressive politics is far beyond the horizon, too far to affect the result in Iraq, where we have already lost, with the only question remaining being how long do we stay and kill more Iraqis


--Richard

Let me clarify on the Iraqi resistance: I think ex-baathists are at the core---- they are the ones with the leadership (military and political) and also the money and guns. Mainstream reports (which may or may not be accurate) have reported that Sadaam hid away tons of weapons and billions of dollar for a guerilla war. I think this a fairly logical explaination for the ferocity of the insurgency though I'm open to other ideas.

I think that there are are probably an unknown percentage of ordinary Iraqis with nationalist tendencies who are taking part in the insurgency under the leadership of the ex-baathists. These Iraqis haven't demonstrated any independent POLITICAL tendency. De facto they are soldiers for the ex-baathists. I'm not trying to spin this analysis-- if anyone else has an illuminating stories on the nature of the insurgents -- please post a link.

As far as the suicide car-bombers go -- lets drop the semantic debate on discriminate and indiscriminate. From the various reports I've heard on Iraq-- the suicide bombers are universally hated by ordinary Iraqis across erthnic/religious lines. These jihadists are foreign fighters. They are a small, but deadly percentage of the mix. These taliban style fascists are for Iraq descending into sectarian violence if not civil war. To support these fascists as the lesser of two evils is a joke. Its embarrassing that leftists like JA bend over backwards apologizing for the their tactics. How about their threats to kill any unveiled women? Or maybe I'm just a purist.

Patrick Graham is one intrepid guy, a riveting article:

http://www.harpers.org/BeyondFallujah.html

if I find more, I'll try to post them tomorrow

I only have a few minutes to write a response. I will respond to JA and Richard's posts--particularly on working class power and resistance--another time.

I'd like to second Travis' sentiments regarding fundamentalist terror.

Perhaps I have erred in my use of the word "indiscriminate" to describe attacks that INEVITABLY cause large numbers of civilian deaths, as many of these attacks are "discriminate" in the sense that they are targetting symbols of the occupation.

I, too, have read that these types of attacks--and, by extension, those who perpetrate them--are opposed by the majority of the Iraqi population. This shouldn't be surprising as they reek of the sort of nihilism that tends to engender hatred.

Allawi's relative fortunes as chief stooge have been tied to the perception that he sought to stamp out the terror outfits. (I might add--apropro an earlier back-and-forth between JA and me--that Allawi found some degree of electoral support among better-off Sunnis *and* Shi'ites).

So, let me rephrase the question to JA: Do you support attacks that inevitably kill large numbers of civilians? Do you support those who conduct such attacks?

(Spare me the rhetorical dodges, and the rest of your half-steppin' schtick. It doesn't impress me in the least.)

While tactics and strategy require a lot of thought and discussion, the starting point is simple:
<P>
<FONT COLOR="#CC0033">Anybody who, for any reason, attacks the military, economic and political agents and collaborators of the U.S. ruling class anywhere in the world is serving the human species (among others!) and the planet.
<P>
If the people doing the attacks happen to be reactionary SOB's, all the better that they should employ suicide bombing as a technique. It's called "killing two birds with one stone".
</FONT>

While tactics and strategy require a lot of thought and discussion, the starting point is simple:

Anybody who, for any reason, attacks the military, economic and political agents and collaborators of the U.S. ruling class anywhere in the world is serving the human species (among others!) and the planet.

If the people doing the attacks happen to be reactionary SOB's, all the better that they should employ suicide bombing as a technique. It's called "killing two birds with one stone".

---

P.S. to reader: I can't figure out who you are. Send me an email at indy528@aarons.fastmail.NOSPAM where "NOSPAM" is replaced by "fm".

what a moronic statement if you are so unhappy go to some third world dung heap and live your life in a mud hut

"De facto they are soldiers for the ex-baathists."

"These Iraqis haven't demonstrated any independent POLITICAL tendency."

"From the various reports I've heard on Iraq--the suicide bombers are universally hated..."

"These jihadists are foreign fighters."

"These taliban style fascists are for Iraq descending into sectarian violence if not civil war."


And assertion of vague claims or unsettled 'facts' -- without a reference/source (a URL, a book, a journalist, an "expert", etc.) for others to evaluate -- is just a *GUESS* about the situation or supposition. *GUESS* what that and 2 cents will get you.

But, if you've never gone to school, you don't know how to document, source, or reference your vague claims and unsettled 'facts'.


"I'm not trying to spin this analysis"

SURE SOUNDS LIKE IT. IN FACT, IT SOUNDS LIKE A *NEOCON*.


"Its embarrassing that leftists like JA bend over backwards apologizing for the their tactics."

I'M NOT APOLOGIZING FOR THEM...: I **SUPPORT** THEM!!

I SAID SO *TONIGHT* AT AN EVENT IN SAN FRANCISCO ON IRAQ.

THE INSURGENCY IS DOING ALMOST EVERYTHING I WOULD BE DOING, MIILITARILY. THEY'RE KILLING SAM'S TROOPS. THEY'RE DESTROYING SAMS FACIILITIES/INSTALLATIONS, AND THEY'RE KILLING SAM'S COLLABORATORS.

I ALSO -- AND SO SHOULD A *REAL* ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT -- SUPPORT CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, MILITARY REFUSENIKS, MILITARY DRAFT/CALL-UP/LEAVE EVADERS, MILITARY SANCTUARY CITIES/TOWNS FOR MILITARY EVADERS, AND 'UNDERGROUND RAILROADS' FOR HELPING EVADING SOLDIERS/DRAFTEES...,

...SO THAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS DON'T HAVE TO BE TURNED INTO FRANKENSTEINS, OR KILL AND MAIM OTHERS FOR LIFE, OR *BE* KILLED AND MAIMED AND MAIMED FOR LIFE.

IN SHORT, I SUPPORT A NONVIOLENT MILITARY RESISTANCE MOVEMENT RIGHT HERE AT HOME, TO COMPLIMENT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE IN WHATEVER FORM IT TAKES.


"How about their threats to kill any unveiled women?"

HEY WOMEN! YOU KNOW THAT WHEN IMPERIALISTS, ZIONISTS, OR (UNDOUBTEDLY) SEXISTS/MISOGYNISTS START USING "WOMEN" AS A REASON TO GO CONQUER SOMEONE, WOMEN ARE THE **LAST** THING THEY CARE ABOUT.

IT'S ALSO ONE OF THE LAST REFUGES OF A SCOUNDREL.

IF THEY CARED ABOUT WOMEN, THEY'D PROTEST TO ATTACK SAUDI ARABIA OR SOME OTHER DICTATORSHIP THAT THE U.S. *SUPPORTS*!!

Richard -- good post on the Harpers article-- though I'm not yet ready to back down from my assertion that the ex-baathists are at the core of the insurgency. More articles like this will help paint a clearer picture.

For a mainstream analysis of the inurgency checkout this weeks Newsweeks portrait on the insurgency. Anyone want to write a critique? When I find a link-- I'll post it.

Hey JA -- Were last weeks Iraqi voters "collaborators"? I guess a majority of Iraqis are "collabarators". And the little fascists fucks (religious or not) who were trying to murder them are the true opposition. Got to go-- argue later

"For a mainstream analysis of the inurgency checkout this weeks *NEWSWEEKS* portrait on the insurgency."


HARPERS:

Patrick Graham is one intrepid guy, a riveting article:

http://www.harpers.org/BeyondFallujah.html:

"By the time I returned in mid-August, the resistance in the area was attacking every few days. It became clear, from the talk of the men who dropped by the house at night, that many in the village supported the attacks. This is not what I had been reading in the newspapers outside Iraq [LIKE THE NY TIMES, TIME MAG, NEWSWEEK; OR 'SEE-B.S.', N.ational P.entagon R.adio, P.entagon B.roadcasting S.ystem, C.orporate N.ews N.etwork, etc. -- "ALL THE NEWS WE'RE FITTIN' TO PRINT" -- YOU KNOW, THAT BASTION OF TRUTH, THE MAINSTREAM CORPORATE MEDIA], where the resistance had been characterized as an unpopular and isolated gang of criminals, remnants of the Baath regime, and foreign Islamic fighters."


NO WONDER TAVIS AND AARON (NOT A.A.) ARE TWO PEAS IN A **NUTSHELL**!!

(YO TAVIS!!: YOU MEAN THAT YOU DON'T GET YOUR NEWS FROM BILL O'REILLY AND RUSH!!?)

I'll pay in the morning, but it was *worth* staying up late for one last check while watching this travelog on Veneto. Ha-ha-ha!!

What on earth did Travis or aaron say that could be considered "zionist"? It's just a meaningless "all-purpose" epithet for you, isn't it? Something you trot out and rant about -however irrelevant- whenever you're losing an argument. You sound like a deranged psychopath foaming at the mouth of the type one sees everwhere in Berkeley. Your all-caps ranting makes you appear even more insane (if that's even possible). Have you ever considered suicide? I'm sure most who know you would breathe a sigh of relief!

Glad to know you're always thinking of me!

a SANE(!!!???) individual ... doesn't have to **RANT** and **SHOUT** it!!:

I'm SANE!! I'm SANE -- I tell you!! I'm SANE!!!


Ha-Ha-Ha...!!

(I was getting sleepy late last night. I normally make the juxtaposition of SPOONFED, WILLINGLY-GULPED IGNORANCE *vs.* INTELLIGENT inquiry/investigation/analysis/presentation much CLEARER, LIKE THIS!!:)

Travis: "Let me clarify on the Iraqi resistance: I think ex-baathists are at the core---- they are the ones with the leadership (military and political) and also the money and guns. ...De facto they are soldiers for the ex-baathists. ...From the various reports I've heard on Iraq-- the suicide bombers are universally hated by ordinary Iraqis across erthnic/religious lines. These jihadists are foreign fighters. ...These taliban style fascists are for Iraq descending into sectarian violence if not civil war."

Travis: "For a mainstream analysis of the inurgency checkout this weeks *NEWSWEEKS* portrait on the insurgency."


HARPERS:

Patrick Graham is one intrepid guy, a riveting article:

http://www.harpers.org/BeyondFallujah.html:

"By the time I returned in mid-August, the resistance in the area was attacking every few days. It became clear, from the talk of the men who dropped by the house at night, that many in the village supported the attacks. This is not what I had been reading in the newspapers outside Iraq [LIKE THE NY TIMES, TIME MAG, NEWSWEEK; OR 'SEE-B.S.', N.ational P.entagon R.adio, P.entagon B.roadcasting S.ystem, C.orporate N.ews N.etwork, etc. -- "ALL THE NEWS WE'RE FITTIN' TO PRINT" -- YOU KNOW, THAT GREAT BASTION OF TRUTH, THE MAINSTREAM CORPORATE MEDIA], where the resistance had been characterized as an unpopular and isolated gang of criminals, remnants of the Baath regime, and foreign Islamic fighters."


NO WONDER TAVIS AND AARON (NOT A.A.) ARE TWO PEAS IN A **NUTSHELL**!!

(YO TAVIS!!: YOU MEAN THAT YOU DON'T GET YOUR NEWS FROM BILL O'REILLY AND RUSH!!?)

You're the only one shouting, loonytunes. Now answer the question, nutcase: what was "zionist" about Travis (NOT "Tavis") or aaron's arguments? Do we need to give you electroshock therapy before you're capable of making a rational argument? Maybe you should wait until your (likely) crack addiction wears off before you attempt an answer.

all these articles come from Asia Times Online, a wonderful source of diverse information about the war in Iraq and the war on terror

(1) a great article by Michael Schwartz about the resistance, and its effort to create an alternative government in Sadr City, with creative analysis:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA12Ak02.html

(2) one of the most recent articles by Syed Saleem Shahzad on the complexity of the resistance, and how high level Baathists are purportedly being kept out of a decisionmaking role:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL25Ak01.html

another one by him on Baathist planning prior to March '03, and the subsequent conduct of the resistance:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK19Ak01.html

and, finally, an article about the prospects of the Arab internationalization of the resistance, based upon an interview:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK13Ak01.html

(3) an old, but still useful article by Pepe Escobar at Asia Times Online, primarily because of how it classifies the different aspects of the resistance towards the end:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL20Ak01.html

more recent articles by Escobar over the last year provide additional nuggets of information about the resistance, as well as some insightful political analysis about people like Sadr, Sistani and their motivations

they can be found at atimes.com , just click on "The Best of Pepe Escobar" link on the home page

(4) neo-Taliban element:

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL23Ak01.html

(5) an article about the resistance and the election, with an interesting interview with a foreign spokesperson stationed in the Netherlands:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB01Ak01.html

(6) a series on the aftermath of the April attack on Falluja by US forces by Nir Rosen, again, a fascinating first person account:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Fallujah.html

(7) another one, as Rosen accompanies US troops in Western Iraq this time:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Rosen.html


on the ex-Baathist role, perhaps the best summary comes from an article that I did not link, because it's overall discussion was too tangential

it stated that the ex-Baathists organized and planned the initial resistance, but that its ranks had been "swollen by ordinary Iraqis"

no doubt there are other good articles from a variety of sources, but just these alone caution anyone from left, right or center, from broad brush characterizations of the resistance, as it appears to be heavily influenced by local and regional factors, as one might expect

if one generalization can be made, it is one that is frequently noted: there is no hierarchical leadership structure, which is to be expected

--Richard

Since the term resistance is thrown around a lot like its a unified group I am curious to know the breakdown of the different resistance groups in terms of their views of SCIRI and DAWA. It seems like Sadr is somewhat supportive of SCIRI and DAWA and much of the Sunni resistance is upportive of Sadr and have denounced the attacks on Shiite holy sites but its not clear if the groups that denounced atacks on Shiite holy sites also oppose attacks on DAWA leaders (like the kidnapping and murder of a DAWA official today). Before the election SCIRI and DAWA were demanding a US withdrawl but now they are backing off from such a demand so its hard to know what this means.

Its also weird that there has been so little news of the Communist Kurdish groups lately even though up until a few years ago the PKK (and then KADEK) were among the larger militant Kurdish groups operating in Northern Iraq. With it lookinng like most Kurds probably voted for a seperate Kurdish state the Kurdish resistance could easilly become the biggest resistance group attacking a new SCIRI/DAWA government but atr the same time most of the Kurds (even those who voted for seperation) seem moderately supportive of the US occupation (just from what one see on http://kurdmedia.com/ and http://kurdistanobserver.com/ which used to be really antiUS and proPKK)

"Now answer the question, nutcase: what was "zionist" about Travis (NOT "Tavis")

[ -- WHAAATEVA...!! -- ]

or aaron's arguments?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ya know what...?

I'm not even gonna tell ya!!

Because I *know* that THAT'LL 'GET' YAS THE *MOST*!!!

HA-HA-HA!!

he is simply a braindead drug-addicted vegetable who shrieks and foams at the mouth. Isn't it time for a "lobotomy" or better yet a "mercy killing" of this deranged specimen?

You didn't answer my question about Iraqi voters? Are they "collobarators"?

Calm down about the Newsweek thing. I don't think Newsweek should be trusted. I'm interested in what Richard thinks of it. Think of it as a kind of a compare and contrast of spin vs. reality on the ground.

[You didn't answer my question about Iraqi voters? Are they "collobarators"?

Calm down about the Newsweek thing. I don't think Newsweek should be trusted. I'm interested in what Richard thinks of it. Think of it as a kind of a compare and contrast of spin vs. reality on the ground.]

after a quick read through, the Newsweek article is not very different than much of the coverage of Asia Times Online during the last year

so, let's set aside the reflexive response, the US media is untrustworthy and should be disregarded

both Newsweek and Asia Times Online coverage see the big picture similarly: there are ex-Baathists, there are Jihadis, there are tribal groups, some people from abroad and some plain, unclassifiable Iraqis, and the coverage in Asia Times Online is all over the map in terms of their relative importance

after that, it gets murky fast

the reference in the Newsweek article to suicide bombers coming from Saudi Arabia is interesting, as a Shahzad article makes reference to possibly as many as 10,000 young Saudis coming into the country

the article struck me as implausible, and still does, so I didn't link it, but the prospect of much smaller numbers of Saudis entering the country to act as suicide bombers seems much more believable

after all, the US military has consistently said that "foreign fighters" constitute only a small percentage of the resistance

my primary objection to the Newsweek article is conceptual

as with US media during the Vietnam War, Newsweek examines the resistance from a classic hierarchical perspective, thus implying that it is merely a creation of Saddam/Wahhabi money and Marxist-Leninist/Islamic autocratic structures

or, maybe, it's just the way US reporters are subconsciously trained to report: provide a simple, linear narrative

anyway, factually, I tend to believe that Saddam put aside a lot of money to finance a resistance after the war, and that a lot of Baathists went underground to organize it, as reported by Newsweek, and others previously

but, all of this would have meant nothing if Iraqis hadn't been disgusted with the occupation, especially given the exponentially greater amounts of money being spread around by the US

thus, the value of the first person accounts, like those of Graham and Rosen, is that they reveal the day to day emotional reality of how the resistance functions, and why the people they encounter are angry enough to fight the US, people who in most instances could not even remotely be considered part of the leadership of some enormous, octopus-like underground cell

and, this would include Rosen's first person account of traveling around with US forces in Western Iraq, linked in my earlier message

such accounts also serve to make one question the assumption that ex-Baathists and all Islamic groups are ideologically rigid and non-responsive to the communities in which they live

accordingly recent Asia Times Online articles by Escobar and Shahzad summarize what is happening: Sunnis are fusing the anti-imperialism of the Baath with the Koran to create a strong motivating social philosophy to motivate people to resist the US, and this is a popular appeal at the grassroots, neighborhood level, as seen in cities like Falluja and Ramadi, which are cities, contrary to US media coverage, that had a history of opposition to Saddam

in other words, the resistance has transformed itself into something far beyond anything stage managed by Saddam associates, something capable of withstanding (and even thriving under) ferocious US assaults and the severing of communication with their original leadership

meanwhile, in the areas of Sadr City and the South, the Shia have recognized political alternatives in addition to violence, such as a political process that is enabling them to take control of the country and possibly gain enough power to demand that the US depart

Sadr is a key figure here, because he has been willing to fight the US violently when he determined it to be necessary, while subsequently establishing links with Sunni clerical figures and creating an alternative government in Sadr City (as brilliantly described by Schwartz)

expect this alternative government to be implicilty recognized by the victorious Shia slate, and thus removed as a target of attack by US forces, despite the fact that it is much more politically threatening to US interests than the groups that controlled Falluja

meanwhile, Sistani has pressured the Occupation Authority to permit a political process that would empower Shia and Kurds, while, hopefully, preventing the fragmentation of the country

so, the question is, can Sadr, Sistani and the Baathist elements of the resistance come together to push the US out of the country?

I think so, despite the efforts of al-Zarqawi to foment conflict between Shia and Sunni (as explained by Zeynep at Under the Same Sun and Rahul Mahajan at empirenotes.org ), because the refusal of the US to rapidly depart the country, because we will continue to insist upon permanent military bases and the legal enshrinement of our corrupt Occupation Authority deals, will make it happen

so far, I am impressed with the political sophistication of Sadr and Sistani, and this should come as no surprise, as each is a highly respected figure in a political culture hundreds of years old, and both have effectively outmaneuvered the US

so, I guess I'm actually an optimist :)


--Richard





similarly,

is Sistani a Gandhi (as alluding to in the article) or a Kerensky?

time will tell, but it is worth noting that if Sistani truly has the goals mentioned in the article, he and Iraq will inevitably come into conflict with the US, because an independent, democraticized Iraqi government in control of its own affairs, with an effective separation between church and state, is the last thing that we would ever accept

and, as I posted elsewhere a couple of days ago, on a Jeff Luers thread, Sistani's pacifism and Sadr's doctrine of self-defense, go hand in hand towards ending the occupation

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB10Ak02.html

[Coming to terms with Sistani
By Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS - The Grand Ayatollah of Iraq, Ali al-Sistani, is probably one of the most influential, controversial and interesting figures in the new Middle East. At first glance he greatly resembles the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, who terrorized the West during his 10-year tenure in Tehran (1979-89) and who become an icon for evil in Hollywood. Khomeini died in 1989, but comparisons linger: both as elderly Shi'ites, both bearded, wearing large turbans and black robes. This, however, is where the similarities end.

Yet to the average Westerner, both are mullahs, both advocates of an Islamic state, and both resemble Osama bin Laden in faith and appearance. The average American must wonder: Is this what American soldiers fought and died for in Iraq, an Islamic republic like Iran, run by another ayatolla?. They are asking: Did American mothers send their children to the Iraq war in order to liberate men like these from dictatorship?

In the post-September 11 world, the image of Sistani is not greatly welcomed by the West. Yet nobody in the West, especially the average American, knows who Ali al-Sistani really is. Will this man attack the US Embassy in Baghdad and take hostages, as Khomeini's followers did in Iran in November 1979? Will he go to war with neighboring countries that oppose his pro-American program, like Syria? Or will he live up to his reputation of being a wise, patriotic and moderate leader for post-Saddam Hussein Iraq? While most of the Western media, influenced by the United States, picture him as one of the most cooperative and patriotic leaders in modern Iraq, his Sunni opponents criticize him in secret, accusing him of unjustifiable cooperation with the Americans.

Differences with Khomeini
Sistani was born in Mashhad, Iran, in 1929 to a family of religious scholars. He studied at the hands of the grand ayatollah Abdul-Qasim Khoei. Sistani rose in religious rank to be named a marje (religious reference) in 1960 during the heyday of the secular military dictatorship of president Abd al-Karim Qasim. He embraced religion when Arab, rather than Islamic, nationalism was the popular ideology in Iraq, and when the number of theology students was dropping by the thousands. In 1918, for example, 6,000 students studied at the theology schools of Sistani's Najaf, while by 1957 it had dropped to 1,954, of whom only 326 were Iraqis.

Many of those enrolled, according to historian Hanna Batatu, did so only in name in order to secure exemption from otherwise compulsory service in the Iraqi army. Sistani supported separation of religion from the state, under the influence of Khoei, and this spared him persecution by the military dictators of the 1960s and 1970s. In theory, he had no problem with the officers keeping the clergy away from political life in Iraq. Sistani stayed away from politics, leading a monastic life, and attracted millions of supporters throughout Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan.

In theory, he supported the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, but he grew disenchanted by Khomeini's theocracy. Sistani believed that government should be run by politicians, not clergymen, whose duty would be to maintain law and order and to run economic affairs, day-to-day politics and foreign relations. The clergy should not become politicians, he stressed, because this would corrupt them and distort their religious message. Instead, they should limit themselves to spiritual and religious matters in which the politicians cannot pass sound judgment.

Khomeinism, on the other hand, gave complete political control and responsibility to the clergymen. Khomeini advocated a system called vilayet-e-faqih (guardianship of the jurisprudent); clerical rule in political affairs, while Sistani called for it only in social issues. Khomeini established a cult personality for himself in Iran, much to the horror of the US, which he famously labeled "The Great Satan".

Sistani opposed that an ayatollah like Khomeini would involve himself in such a war of words - something that should be handled by the politicians, not the clergy. Even today, with US forces in Iraq, Sistani has refrained from ever criticizing the US, urging his men not to take up arms against the Americans, yet refusing to meet with any US official on Iraqi soil. He acknowledges that they are invaders, but it is not his duty to fight them out of Baghdad. He welcomed the war on Saddam, with no mandate from the United Nations, yet insisted on having UN inspectors at the elections of January 30.

While Khomeini's team, and not necessarily Khomeini himself, was influenced by the methods of Arab dictators, such as immortalizing the leader and one-party rule, Sistani was a democrat at heart who believed in the people's right to choose. This explains why he embraced the January elections in Iraq, calling on Shi'ites, who make up 60% of Iraq's 27 million people, to vote, claiming that this was a religious duty.

Sistani knows that when the Shi'ites boycotted the elections of 1922, objecting to Sunni hegemony, they were totally left out of political decision-making, not only under monarchial Iraq, but for the rest of the 20th century. In 1933, the Sunni King Faysal I wrote, "The Shi'ite ulama have no connection with the government and are at present estranged from it, particularly in as much as they see the Sunni ulama in possession of funds and properties of which they are deprived, and envy, notably among the religious classes, is something well known."

That is precisely why Sistani insisted that every Iraqi Shi'ite must vote - even a woman whose husband forbade her from voting could defy his orders and go to the ballots. The Shi'ites in 1922 had objected to holding elections under occupation (just as the Sunnis are doing today), and suffered tremendously for their stance. What did they get? A British-written constitution, something that would have likely been repeated by the Americans had the Shi'ites refrained from voting in 2005. Sistani sees it as his duty never to let the Shi'ites commit such a blunder again.

Becoming a leader
Sistani's mentor, Khoei, died in 1992 and named him successor. Saddam dreaded Sistani's influence, especially since the Shi'ite cleric had endorsed a US-backed Shi'ite rebellion against him in 1991. As much as he wished, Saddam could not murder Sistani because this would have created civil war in Iraq. Having just been ejected from Kuwait, defeated at the hands of the US Army, facing a rebellion in southern Iraq, and brought under UN sanctions, Saddam could not jeopardize his regime by going to war with the Shi'ites.

Nor could Saddam make Sistani vanish, as Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had done with Lebanese Shi'ite leader Musa al-Sadr in 1978. Years later, when having re-enforced his power in 1999, Saddam murdered Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, another famous cleric, without blinking, but in 1991, he had too much on his hands and could not do the same with Sistani.

Instead, he put Sistani under house arrest, shut down his mosque and forbade him from preaching. The Shi'ite leader remained in seclusion until Saddam was toppled in 2003. He has since reinforced his authority over Shi'ites throughout the region, sending emissaries to Iran to meet with the clergy, and relying on state-of-the-art technology to market his leadership through the Internet. This is mainly done through a multi-language website called http://www.sistani.org, which attracts millions of visitors from Iran alone every month. Sistani receives hundreds of visitors at his home in Najaf every day, but does not go out, does not give interviews, nor does he like his photograph taken. His office is Internet-wired and his aides are often on the Internet, surfing to brief him on the latest updates taking place around the world.

Challenges
Despite his popularity, Sistani does face several challenges in Iraq. First, many Shi'ites in the country do not want to cooperate with the Americans, remembering only too well how the US triggered them to rise against Saddam in 1991, then let the Iraqi dictator butcher them without lifting a finger to stop him.

The Gandhian methods of Sistani have aroused the anger of young radical and militant leaders of the Shi'ite community, such as Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of a militia called the Mehdi Army, who is 42 years Sistani's junior. Although he does not match him in religious legitimacy, Muqtada is popular among the youth, and has a particular power base among the urban poor, whereas Sistani's influence is paramount among the urban middle and higher-class of the Shi'ite community. Some have interpreted Sistani's increased involvement in political affairs since 2003 as a direct response to the popularity of Muqtada, fearing that he would outflank him. This is far-fetched and very difficult to believe since Sistani is a confident man who intensified his political dealings only because he was the highest religious authority for the Shi'ites in Iraq and felt responsible for them, and Iraq as a whole, due to the turmoil that took place after the fall of Saddam and the terrible economic conditions of all Iraqis.

Last April, Muqtada went to war against the Americans in Najaf, inspiring thousands of militant Shi'ites. Sistani ordered a ceasefire, which went into effect in May, but in August he was rushed to London for medical reasons, and before he had reached Heathrow Airport, fighting had broken out again in Najaf. Some speculated that he left Iraq on purpose, to give the Americans an easy assault on Muqtada. By physically absenting himself from Najaf, he was distancing himself completely from Muqtada.

The fact that he could have been treated in Iraq, in nearby Iran or in Lebanon, since all he needed was minor surgery, also colored him as too pro-West in the eyes of some conservatives. On August 15, The Sunday Times quoted US commander Major David Holahan on Sistani's departure: "A lot of people think it is the green light for us to do what we have to do." Sistani remained abroad for three weeks, returning to Iraq while fighting was still raging in Najaf.

Using his towering influence, he once again brokered a ceasefire between the US and Muqtada. According to Milan Rai in an article titled "The Sistani puzzle", many young Iraqi Shi'ites began to lose faith in Sistani's leadership as a result of his exodus during Muqtada's fighting with the US. Some even began to tear down his photos, claiming that he had escaped and not saved their city. One said, "Sistani escaped from Najaf. There are more hospitals in Baghdad to treat the same disease but he escaped to save himself." Another agreed: "Sistani escaped from Iraq because he was afraid. There are hospitals [in Iraq] that can treat him. At the end he is a coward."

Both of the angry Shi'ites were in the mid-20s. Yet Sistani re-intervened at the excellent moment, when Muqtada and his men were surrounded by US tanks, ready to be mowed down. They had no choice but to obey him, and the Americans, too, had no choice but to let him handle the messy situation. The Americans understood how unwise it would be to cross Sistani, and being always in need of legitimate leaders to work with them, they cannot afford losing someone with his influence in the Shi'ite community. When then US administrator L Paul Bremer tried to push for a constitution penned by US-appointed officials, Sistani objected, claiming that the constitutional assembly should be voted for directly by the people themselves. Rather than hold by his views, Bremer immediately backed down.

Sistani has a clear agenda: to achieve democracy, safeguard the rights of the Shi'ites and set up an Islam-friendly regime in Baghdad, ruled by politicians yet supervised in religious affairs by the clergy. He sees himself as Iraq's guardian and not as the political puppet master, as some accuse him of wanting to become. He has read his history correctly and remembers only too well how the Shi'ites had suffered from one Sunni-dominated regime to the next, starting off with the Ottoman sultans in the 1500s to Saddam.

He also wants them to remain devoted to Shi'ite Islam, inasmuch as they are devoted to Iraq, to remain united against everyone, the Sunnis, the Americans, the Kurds, etc. Sistani has the power today to make Iraq a democracy. It would be difficult, but the keys to success are in his hands more so than in men like former exiles Ahmad Chalabi or Iyad Allawi, the latter now premier.

The Americans must take Sistani very seriously. His cooperation in Iraq is what prevents them from striking at the Shi'ite regime in Iran, despite its nuclear program, or the Shi'ite militia of Hezbollah in Lebanon, despite its continued war with Israel. Sistani would hear nothing of both scenarios. If the Americans foolishly decide to side step him, he could unleash hell in the Fertile Crescent. He is the best ayatollah in Iraq and they have to accept that his vision of democracy for post-Saddam Iraq is very different from what they had in mind.

Dr Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.]

of course, the anti-war, anti-Zionist movement must support Arab resistance to Zio-American dominance in their own lands.
Duh.

to the above poster-- tell us why we should support religious fascists and the national socialists Baathists. Explain. JA can't other than they are kickin ass!! Dude!

Today in Juan Cole's blog.
"The terrorism in Iraq is being carried out by Baathists with a very small number of foreign fighters from the Salafi trend in Sunni Islam"

Well there you go one of America's leading leftists on Iraq agrees that the Baathists are carrying out the violence.

Read about the murder of an Iraqi Trade union leader by the Iraqi insurgents. I'm sure JA will say he was "collaborator" like the millions of Iraqis who voted last week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1394127,00.html

Bush, Ariel Sharon and all the neocons are the ULTIMATE religious fascists.

DUH!!

You moron...

The US just needs to butt out of the entire Middle East and that includes "Israel" aka the Zionist entity, IsraHell, or Isn'treal.

A highly placed US official in Baghdad told the Chicago Tribune's Liz Sly that he thought the guerrilla war would go on for many years. As regular readers know, I concur. The old Sunni Arab power elite, mainly Baathists or the officer class, has not reconciled itself to the political ascendancy of the Shiites and Kurds. They still think they can destabilize the country and take back over. I would compare them to the Phalangists, the fascist Maronite Christians in Lebanon, who fought tooth and nail 1975-1989 against recognizing that Christians were no longer a dominant majority in Lebanon. Eventually they had to accept a 50/50 split of seats in parliament (which is generous to the Christians, given that Muslims are now a clear majority). That the Sunni Arab elite might be quicker studies than the Phalangists is possible but a little unlikely.

Likewise, the guerrillas in Iraq have many advantages. They were the managerial class and the officer class, so they have a great deal of organizational know-how. They clearly still have some of the loot the Baathists stole from the Iraqi people, and they know where the missing 250,000 tons of munitions are. If either ran out, there are plenty of Gulf millionnaires who would surreptitiously support a Sunni insurgency against American domination in Iraq. Money is fungible and I don't think their support could be effectively interfered with (do you know how many nouveau riche millionnaires there are in the Gulf?)

Any comments Richard?

[A highly placed US official in Baghdad told the Chicago Tribune's Liz Sly that he thought the guerrilla war would go on for many years. As regular readers know, I concur. The old Sunni Arab power elite, mainly Baathists or the officer class, has not reconciled itself to the political ascendancy of the Shiites and Kurds. They still think they can destabilize the country and take back over. I would compare them to the Phalangists, the fascist Maronite Christians in Lebanon, who fought tooth and nail 1975-1989 against recognizing that Christians were no longer a dominant majority in Lebanon. Eventually they had to accept a 50/50 split of seats in parliament (which is generous to the Christians, given that Muslims are now a clear majority). That the Sunni Arab elite might be quicker studies than the Phalangists is possible but a little unlikely.

Likewise, the guerrillas in Iraq have many advantages. They were the managerial class and the officer class, so they have a great deal of organizational know-how. They clearly still have some of the loot the Baathists stole from the Iraqi people, and they know where the missing 250,000 tons of munitions are. If either ran out, there are plenty of Gulf millionnaires who would surreptitiously support a Sunni insurgency against American domination in Iraq. Money is fungible and I don't think their support could be effectively interfered with (do you know how many nouveau riche millionnaires there are in the Gulf?)]

and, a better way of analyzing the situation than through the application of indistinct labels like Baathist and Jihadis

Sunnis may have a social interest in trying to recover their power for reasons independent of party affiliation

even so, it is evident that the resistance is much broader than a group of disaffected Sunnis engaged in a misguided effort to recover past privilege

one need only read articles about the resistance in places like Falluja, Ramadi and even far western Iraq to recognize that this explanation is inadequate

and, again, it relies too much on the kind of conspiracy theory used by American media to explain the resistance, and avoid the obvious: a lot of Iraqis, with the exception of the Kurds, detest the occupation

otherwise, it would have never gotten so out of hand, regardless of how much money wealthy Sunnis spread around

additionally, note that some of the most immediate, violent resistance after the war emerged in Sadr City, a predominately poor Shia neighborhood, and Falluja, a city known for its opposition to Saddam

indeed, the most interesting thing about Iraq during the occupation to me has been the extent to which the different ethnic groups have not drastically escalated the violence against one another, despite numerous provocations to do so, while continuing to primarily target Americans and those perceived as collaborating with them

at the risk of being repetitive, if Sistani and Sadr can reduce the resistance to the level of disaffected politically and socially connected Sunnis, they will quickly succeed in their efforts to construct a new Iraq

finally, as an aside, it is fascinating to ponder that the Sunnis, despite their Baathist past, appear to constitute the most secular people in Iraqi society (just look at how a sizeable number of ex-Baathists leaders actually went over to the occupation, partially for this reason), and, yet, at the grassroots level, have been completely alienated by the US

leaving the US to have to work with Sistani, who is apparently a significant restraint upon US wishes to strike Hizbollah and Iran militarily (see the last paragraphs of the article about Sistani that I posted), a situation definitely not anticipated by the neo-conservatives, who expressed their preference for Allawi's perverse rainbow coalition of ex-Baathists, Sunnis, and others by pouring money into their campaign and transporting them around in US military transport


--Richard

...is another's freedom fighter. The US just labels 'em differently for packaging!

freedom fighter
n : a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurgent, insurrectionist, rebel]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

insurgent
adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: seditious, subversive] n 1: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel] 2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, guerilla, irregular]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

growing Sunni Wahhabi influence from an article by Patrick Cockburn:

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick02122005.html

To turn around the famous Christian saying, "Hate the sin, not the sinner!", I'd say, "Love the anti-U.S. act, not the actor!"

If I knew that some German neo-Nazi were about to commemorate today's 60th anniversary of the firebombing of Dresden by attacking a U.S. military base, I wouldn't want to discourage him. But this wouldn't stop me from supporting those who might beat the shit out of him -- or even kill him -- on another occasion, such as when he attacked leftists or immigrants.

This is not, though, meant to imply a parallelism between the U.S./British attacks on Dresden and their more recent attacks on Iraq. The former were in the context of an inter-imperialist war, while the latter are part of a war between imperialist powers and a country dominated by imperialism.

If the question is whether or not the slogan, "Support the Iraqi Resistance" should be a point of unity in organizing anti-war demonstrations, I'd say no! Part of the reason is that it's meaning is ambiguous, as this discussion shows.

On the other hand, "Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawl of all U.S. and Allied Forces from Iraq" should be such a point of unity. In particular, absolutely NO support or even tolerance should be given to the demand (coming from some troops and their families) that U.S. troops in Iraq be better equipped to carry out their assigned task.

Travis hath written:

he [JA] still hasn't answered the little question of the Millions of ordinary Iraqi voters who risked their lives AGAINST THE INSURGENCY [i.e., RESISTANCE -- Aaron] to vote. Are the Iraqi voters "collabarators"?

Although I'm not JA and I don't speak for him, I'll venture at least a piece of an answer.

According to the latest report from Voice of America – not a pro-resistance source – election officials say the voter turnout was only two percent in Sunni-dominated Anbar province, where the resistance is strongest! While I haven't seen figures for turnout in other areas of resistance strength, it seems likely that the overwhelming majority of those who voted were in areas where there was little threat of resistance violence and a much greater threat of economic and perhaps physical retaliation against those who did not vote. This was especially true for Kurds in the North, where there are reports of some Kurds being so enthusiastic that they voted several times!

Whether the Iraqis who voted should be labelled collaborators is a complex issue. However, the leaderships of the two main Kurdish parties, the PUK and KDP, have years of experience in the art of collaboration. They collaborated in the 1960's and 1970's with the U.S. and Iran against the Ba'athists, only to stabbed in the back when the Shah and Kissinger made a deal with the latter. In the 1990's, after jointly suppressing the post-war workers' uprising, they fought a war between them wherein each at times called on the Ba'ath for help against the other! They also, during this period, collaborated with Turkey against fighters from Turkish Kurdistan who had rear bases in Iraqi Kurdistan. Now they are collaborating with the U.S. (and with Israeli operatives) against the Iraqi Arabs. Perhaps they're hoping that the U.S. will protect them against Turkey, whose chauvinist rulers won't tolerate the idea of a Kurdish state, since it might give ideas to Turkey's very large Kurdish minority, which is barely allowed to use its own language! But Turkey is much more important to the U.S., and probably to Israel, than the Kurds are, so the latter are probably S.O.L. again.

Aaron Aarons-- Well-- over 50 people died trying to vote -- so certainly not everywhere was "safe". I would argue that in most of Iraq it took at least some guts to vote. I think its wrong-headed for the left to try diminish this.

According to Juan Cole 58% voted of eligible Iraqi voters-- DESPITE the insurgency. If the insurgents weren't killing people the voting totals would probably have been 70-80%. So are 70 or 80 % of Iraqis "collabarators"? The answer isn't complex.

That said I don't think the election was legimate in the legalistic sense nor do I think it was any type endorsement of the occupation. I do think it speaks to the nature of the insurgency. 1) The old ruling appartus of the Baathists know that any sharing of power means a massive loss of power and privelige-- clearly they have shown that the can put up a serious fight not only against the U.S. but potentially to any other forces emerging out of Iraq. They will kill other Iraqis in large numbers before they will share power.

The other Aaron here posts about supporting progressive class forces within Iraq. The problem is these people have been slaughtered and tortured by the Baathists for the last 30 years and at this point haven't shown that they are a significant tendency. Unfortunately people like JA support the murderers who make it even more unlikely that any positive tendencies could emerge. I think my post of the murdered trade union leader is an example of this.

As far as the foreign fighters go they are religious fascists-- even Sadr (who's not much better) calls them terrorists. Leftists need to get off the fence about these creeps.

As far as the Kurds go-- I don't really disagree with your point. My point is simply that it isn't just the US that is willing to kill for oil or power. The Baathists were willing to commit genocide for it as well. JA supports these despicable people.

"I would argue that in most of Iraq it took at least some guts to vote."
It took some guts to vote and some guts not to vote, when ones stuck between two sides that care nothing for human life its hard to say if supporting one side, the other side or no side is braver.

"According to Juan Cole 58% voted of eligible Iraqi voters"
Thats 58% of registered voters. Lets say 70% were registered, then that would make 40%. The initial estimates of the % of registered voters was higher since people underestimated the number of elibible voters not in Iraq (More Iraqis in the occupying powers voted in than Sunni Atab Iraqis in Iraq)

-"If the insurgents weren't killing people the voting totals would probably have been 70-80%"
Or it may have been lower ,who knows. Since the Sunnis knew they would get a small enough portion of the vote to not be able to block the constitution that way, not voting and letting the percent of Iraq thats Sunni Arab remain vague perhaps even gives them more power. Also Turkmen and Christian Iraqis in Northen Iraq wanted to vote couldnt because the Kurdish parties rigged the elections top get majorities in cities they want to be part of Kurdistan. Since the US is so allied with the Kuridsh parties that were cheating one cant really call them the Resistance.

"are 70 or 80 % of Iraqis "collabarators"?"
The 2nd plank of the UIA's platform was a timetable for US withdrawl and even the Kurds want a seperate state which the US rejects so the only votes one can really see bieng for the US (perhaps making the voters collabarators" is the small percentage of the vote that went to Allawi's party.

"The old ruling appartus of the Baathists know that any sharing of power means a massive loss of power and privelige-- clearly they have shown that the can put up a serious fight not only against the U.S. but potentially to any other forces emerging out of Iraq. They will kill other Iraqis in large numbers before they will share power."
Except they wont the insurgancy may have certain demands but everyone knows that Sunni rule over all of Iraq is an impossibility insurgancy or not. A good portion of the insurgancy hates the Baathists since the Baath party was in direct conflict with the Islamic fundamentalists who are the only ones really able to get suicide bombers.


"I think my post of the murdered trade union leader is an example of this."
There are a lotr of murders going on in Iraq and its hard to say what the "insurgancy" is. Awhile ago various "insurgant" groups threatened to attack the groups carrying out attacks on Shiites since they saw that as undermining the Reisstance. Manyh of the kidnappings are actually for money with the kidnapped victims being sold to insurgent groups and in some cases killed if they cant be sold....

"As far as the foreign fighters go they are religious fascists"
Who exactly are the foriegn fighters? Most reports from the Sunni triangle has a very small percentage of those fighting the Americans being foreign. Most of Falluja were locals who mainly hated the US as a result of a cycle of violence that started when the US opened fire on a protest in 2003. From first hand reports Ive heard from independent journalists who went into Falluja (and from one who was even held briefly as a hostage) even the Islamic portions of the Resistance were mainly local.

"My point is simply that it isn't just the US that is willing to kill for oil or power."
Duh

"The Baathists were willing to commit genocide for it as well"
But now they dont realy exist and most of the opposition is comming from Iraqi nationalists who were not Baathists.

In terms of the overall argument one thing you leave out is that the election results were not just for a group of Shiite Islamic Parties with strong links to the mullahs in Iran , it was also a victory for the followers of Sadr. The UIA as a whole has taken up Sadr's demands for Islamic law and many of Sadr's supporters won in regional elections. Despite the propaganda that the resistance is all foriegn Islamists and Baathists, its likely that those who will be most upset with the election outcome are secular Iraqis who want freedom and not an opressive state that will likely treat women and many minorities as bad or worse than Saddam did (I doubt there will be the same sorts of large massacres outside of Kurds massacring Turkmen) but religious law will place many restrictions on women that did not exist under Saddam and the same goes for the small minority religions like the Christians who even rose to high office (like Aziz) but will probably be more restricted then even in Iran today in a future Iraq.

Perhaps the election looks like a brave move on the part of the Iraqis but the rise of Khomeini in Iran required a lot of bravery on the part of many Iranians too but one doesnt really celebrate that outcome...

I think your analysis on the Iraqi elections is what Richard above said about leftists or rightists who try to project their insular politics onto another group of people (Iraqis). And by the way you need some sources to back up your numbers--speculation don't cut it.

-----------------
You said---
But now they dont realy exist and most of the opposition is coming from Iraqi nationalists who were not Baathists.
--------------------

Well provide some links to back your point. To say the baathists don't exist and just disappearred is in my opinion ABSOLUTELY absurd. Before the occupation there were maybe 2- 3 million Baath party members-- They are still there maybe under a new name but they are there with money and a lot of weapons. How much influence they have is debatable. I think a lot-- others here have expressed disagreement but to say they don't really exist flies in the face of almost all reporting (whether left, right or mainstream). Again provide some links about your independent nationalists.

" To say the baathists don't exist and just disappearred is in my opinion ABSOLUTELY absurd."

They do exist and many form the backbone of Allawi's party. The US may have initially fired senior Baathists but they are all back working with the AMericans to screw Iraq siince they were the only ones trained for the tasks the US needs done.

One could say this is justa guess but you can look at the senior officers in the new Army and the heads of various government departments and see this for yourself.

The structure of the Reistance is obviously a lot harder to "prove" since one cant exactly go poll them and those trying to spin the war in a positiev manner have a strong ineterest in making their own claims about the resistance. One can look through all those arrested and look at their backgrounds (although most of those arrested were not part of the Resistance and were never chraged with anything) or one can look at first hand accounts of alternative journalists and those who were kidnapped (here is one http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=2009&category_id=48 ) but it is all just guesswork (maybe those who kidnapped foreignors were Iraqis who hated Baathists and in other cities the situation is different) The lack of a real presence of "foreign fighters" ois perhaps easier to prove in the small number of foriegn fighters among those captured or killed by US troops (but again one does have to realize that most captured and killed are innocent civilians caught up by accident so evn those numbers dont tell much)

No. Plain and simply. To support the anti american movement in Iraq would be supporting terrorism. For the simple reason that most of those carrying out anti american violent actions are doing it in a terroristic way. Its different if they were to pull a suicide bombing in the middle of an American camp. That would be fighting in the war. But they do it without regard to civillian life. They'll do it in the middle of the street without care for any bystandard casualties. Some people think the Americans are uncaring baby-killers over there. These terrorists kill more non-combatants than the American Soldiers ever will in this war. To even consider supporting these pigs would be dispicable and vile. Anyone who does has no right to live in such a free and wonderful country such as the United States of America.

referring to the Baathists-----
They do exist and many form the backbone of Allawi's party. The US may have initially fired senior Baathists but they are all back working with the AMericans to screw Iraq siince they were the only ones trained for the tasks the US needs done.
-------
This is plausible. However (again) giving some sources would help --
And even if it is true (that baathists are working with Allawi) there is lots of reporting of ex-Baathists taking part in the insurgency. Check some of Richards above links. One doesn't exclude the other.

The good point of your post is that you seem to understand the Baathists for the scum that they are. Some of the posters on this thread aren't as enlightened.

" lots of reporting of ex-Baathists taking part in the insurgency"

Some obviously so since so many people were members. It takes some skill to make IEDs etc.. but that more suggests ex-army which includes a large percentage of Iraqi men. My guess is that the drive isnt ex-bath or not ex-bath but those without jobs who have built up grudges against Americans for personal reasons. The first year after the US invasion could have been mainly islamists and nationalists (which could have corresponded to Baathists) but by now there are plenty of more tangible reasosns to hate the Occupiers.

To the otehr comment above
"The Baath party is a secular socialist party that supports the forming of a pan-Arabic union much like the European Union. There is nothing wrong with that"
That was true of the original Baath party but by the time Sadam rose to power it just stood for totalitarianism and personal power.

RE says----- My guess is that the drive isnt ex-bath or not ex-bath but those without jobs who have built up grudges against Americans for personal reasons. The first year after the US invasion could have been mainly islamists and nationalists (which could have corresponded to Baathists) but by now there are plenty of more tangible reasosns to hate the Occupiers. ----

Let me explain the reason I'm skeptical of this logic. If what you say is true--- grudges about jobs and other personal reasons against American occupiers are the motivations behind the insurgency-- then why aren't there more Shia or even Kurds involved in the resistance? Why is the resistance mostly Sunni and strongest in Baathists strongholds like Tikrit? I think the motivation is the loss of privelge and power that Sunnis in general and the Baathists in particular had enjoyed under Saddam is central to the insurgency (AT THIS POINT--and this may very likely change).

Let me clarify that I'm not saying that Iraqis support the occupation (at least the Sunnis and Shia)

"why aren't there more Shia or even Kurds involved in the resistance? Why is the resistance mostly Sunni and strongest in Baathists strongholds like Tikrit?"

Well the original fighting and US raids were in the Sunni triangle and the US troops were not even in the South (that was the Poles and British). The Kurds didnt have to deal with any real righting until recently and thats definitely an issue of a struggle for Kirkuk thats unrelted to anything do do with the Baath Party. Plus one has to consider that there was a lot of fighting between the Mahdi militia and the US for awhile and what quieted that down was the promise that when Shiites rose to power they could kick the US out (thats what the UIA promised). Sunnis dont face the prospect of any real power in Iraq's future so there is bound to be anger over that thats also unrelated to Baath issues (remember that Allawi was Baath as are many of the senior military men in the US backed Iraqi army)

[RE says----- My guess is that the drive isnt ex-bath or not ex-bath but those without jobs who have built up grudges against Americans for personal reasons. The first year after the US invasion could have been mainly islamists and nationalists (which could have corresponded to Baathists) but by now there are plenty of more tangible reasosns to hate the Occupiers. ---

Let me explain the reason I'm skeptical of this logic. If what you say is true--- grudges about jobs and other personal reasons against American occupiers are the motivations behind the insurgency-- then why aren't there more Shia or even Kurds involved in the resistance? Why is the resistance mostly Sunni and strongest in Baathists strongholds like Tikrit? I think the motivation is the loss of privelge and power that Sunnis in general and the Baathists in particular had enjoyed under Saddam is central to the insurgency (AT THIS POINT--and this may very likely change).
Let me clarify that I'm not saying that Iraqis support the occupation (at least the Sunnis and Shia)]

Maybe, we need to think outside the box a little.

Baathism is a complex social phenomenon, one that I don't think is well understood in the US (I know that I certainly don't), where it is considered to have been overwhelmed by the cult of personality surrounding Saddam.

I have never thought this to be true, sensing that it remains the primary expression of Iraqi secular nationalism among Sunnis (with, perhaps, still a surprising residue of support elsewhere as well, look at the troubles in Mosul). Like secular movements worldwide in the face of a resurgent religious fundamentalism, I find it hard to believe that the influence of Baathism did not fade even as Saddam retained power.

Who is it? The historian Batutu? He analyzed Baathism in Syria and Iraq, but I've never had the time to chase these books down and read them. I suspect that there is some very enlightening things in them that might surprise.

Anyway, one should display care in drawing conclusions about the nature of Baathism in post-Saddam Iraq. It has been reduced by the US media into a catch all term that serves the purpose of rendering them politically irrelevant.

In fact, Baathists seem to have split between the occupation and the resistance (and sometimes helping each other across the divide?). Baathists in the resistance have been reported, on numerous occasions, as working with Islamic fundamentalists.

With the defeat in the war, and the capture of Saddam, Baathists must have gone through their own kind of "zero hour" experience, as fascists did in Germany and Japan when World War II ended, and found themselves forced to confront how, if at all, they could play any role in their newly transformed societies. In these earlier instances, the Cold War answered the question for them, they successfully marketed themselves as indispensable to the US. As already noted, some Baathists took this approach by joining the occupation, but history never quite repeats exactly, so it didn't work this time.

If anything, Baathists probably responded to this predicament in the standard way, through the exercise of blatant opportunism. Nationalist Baathists were perfectly willing to work with Islamic groups, while modernist Baathists (for a lack of a better term) have substituted the US for the defunct USSR as a role model, and chosen to collaborate with the occupation. Indeed, one wonders whether the the nationalist/modernist split more accurately describes the nature of the conflict among Iraqis than anything we've heard from the media.

The practical consequences of this fissure were revealed in the election result. If the elected assembly proves incapable of negotiating the withdrawal of US/UK troops on terms that enable it to prevent the US from taking control of the country's economic assets, Baathism may reemerge in some new powerful variant, a form of Koranic Marxism, much as, say, the defunct Whig Party played a strong role in the subsequent success of the Republican Party in the mid-1800s here in the US.

--Richard

"cult of personality surrounding Saddam. I have never thought this to be true,"

It definitely did turn into a cult in that statues were built for Saddam etc.. In terms of seeing it as a regional movement one has to look at the different time periods and the divisions that formed between the Iraqi Baath Party and other Baath parties. Just like the Chinese Communist Party still teachs Marx even though it promotes Capitalism, Im sure there are elements of the early days that were/are still around but I wonder if those really mean anything. Does the Syrian Baath Party still stand for anything? I dont know, but it would be something to look at when trying to understand what the Baath Party in Iraq meant right before the invasion.

We can be virtually certain, based on a little knowledge of history, that some of the bombings and other acts of violence, especially those that appear to be sectarian and divisive, are being carried out by people in the pay of the U.S. and/or Israel.

We should support all violence that is clearly directed against the occupiers and their puppets, and denounce all violence that clearly isn't. Unfortunately, there is and will be a large gray area, considering that our knowledge of the situation is limited.

see the following:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB15Ak02.html

(I posted it here as a repost article, entitled "US Covertly Arming Ex-Baathists?", on the site earlier today)

I'm at a loss to judge the credibility of the article, given that the author, Shahzad, appears to be relying upon ISI, Pakistani intelligence type sources, but he has written good stories in the past.

--Richard

According to the Asian Times, the US is planning to arm militias (composed of former-Ba'athists) to undermine any prospective attempt by emboldened Shi'ite fundies to assert autonomy and take control of southern Iraq's oil fields.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB15Ak02.html
An excerpt:
...To head off this threat of a Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement, the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to "nip the evil in the bud".

Asia Times Online has learned that in a highly clandestine operation, the US has procured Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry. Consignments have been loaded in bulk onto US military cargo aircraft at Chaklala airbase in the past few weeks. The aircraft arrived from and departed for Iraq.

The US-armed and supported militias in the south will comprise former members of the Ba'ath Party, which has already split into three factions, only one of which is pro-Saddam Hussein. They would be expected to receive assistance from pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's Iraqi National Accord...

I didn't mean to be redundant with my previous post, but that's apt to happen when it takes six or more hours for a post to register. What's up with that anyway? Why do posts on certain threads appear almost immediately while on others it takes hours and hours?

Well its clear that a portion of the insurgency wants to take Iraq down the path of civil war. Unless these are "fake" attacks but I doubt it. A link from Juan Cole: http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=050218165551.no8m0fx6.xml

The problem I see with some American anti-imperialists is that many could care less about Iraqi lives as long as the insurgency delivers a sometype of blow to Uncle Sam. The baathist and fundamentalist elements are the most likely people to come out on top if the US was pushed out by the insurgency (which would takes years, a probable civil war, and mountains of ordinary Iraqis bodies to accomplish).

Here's a blog that might give some insight into the anti-war movement in England. A highlight is the Socialist Workers Party (who is large and influential) abstained in condeming the murder of the Iraqi trade union worker posted above (though the measure passed otherwise). I hope this isn't where the anti-war movement is headed here.


http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/

With the exception of a few wing-dings like JA, the vast majority of people who opposed the invasion of Iraq are unwilling to lend uncritical support to the so-called insurgency. Before you fly off into a fit of hysteria--and jump over to a de facto pro-war position--it's important to be clear about that, Travis.

Your question above suggests that you think that sectarian violence is a "blow against Uncle Sam"--albeit one you don't support. Put bluntly, the US benefits to the extent that Iraq drifts toward fratricidal war. Sure, it's not good for business in the short term, but it provides a pretext for continued US "involvement" and recomposes the fight in a way that ultimately strengthens America's position in Iraq.

There's more that I want to say, but I gotta go. Will say more later.

Travis: You act like the fact that there were elections somehow changes the US ruling class' plans in Iraq. Yes, the outcome of elections may impact the manner by which the US goes about enacting its imperial policies, but you sound like you think American rulers are wont to allow "democratic elections" dictate the course of events in countries they intend to control.

With the exception of the Kurds, the vast majority of Iraqi's--Sunni and Shi'ite--want the US the fuck out. Most Sunnis didn't vote and a good portion of Shi'ites did. The Shi'ites in the main voted at the behest of Sistani, whose representatives issued religious orders saying those who didn't vote for the Shi'ite List would be punished by god. In addition to what the Workers-Communist Party of Iraq calls "spiritual terrorism" of this sort, there were also reports that Iraqi's were threatened with getting their rations cut off if they didn't vote.

While you imply that Iraqi's have faith in American-imposed democracy, there is evidence is that what's more true is that many voted because, on the one hand, they thought it might expedite the end of the occupation (note Allawi's poor showing) and, on the other, because of pressure from the occupiers, religious clerics, and various political entrpreneurs. I don't claim to know to what extent coercion and threats played in getting Iraqi's out to the polls, but I don't think the evidence supports your rather sanguine assessment of the vote's meaning.

We don't know the exact nature of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans that are going on to ensure America's plans are enacted, but we can be sure they are in full effect. It was reported that on February 9th Ahmed Chalabi met with American representatives and came away looking very happy. Today in an interview with George Stephanopolous Chalabi indicated that he is first in line for Prime Minister. Ah, sweet democracy!

The two main parties that compose the list that Sistani called upon Shi'ites to support--the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Da'wa Party--didn't *run* a platform that some of their reps have indicated they want to *implement*. For instance, Abdel Mahdi, currently the finance minister and a member of the SCIRI--and also a contender for Prime Minister--gave a speech on December 22 of last year, with US Under Secretary of State Alan Larson at his side, at the National Press Club in Washington in which he said that a new oil law would privatize the oil industry, allowing investment in both downstream and "maybe even upstream" operations. As the Asian Times commented, this would mean foreigners could become de facto owners of Iraq's oilfields. (I *wonder* what "foreigners" those might be!)

In short, there's a reason why we anarcho-commies say democracy is a ruse.

May 29, 2005 - - Do the people of Iraq have the right to defend themselves against violent foreign invasion and occupation by any means at their disposal against an aggressive and rapacious enemy enjoying overwhelming military superiority?

This is a right Americans unquestionably would invoke were their country invaded and occupied by a foreign power. They would take whatever measures were necessary to defeat the enemy and force it to withdraw.

The United States government supports this position and recognizes its validity in relation to all other nations invaded by foreign aggressors--except when it is Washington that initiates or supports the invasion of another sovereign state. By White House whim, the subject state loses its right to self-defense.

In Iraq, for example, President George W. Bush, who launched the unjust and unlawful invasion over two years ago, is appalled by the suggestion that the Iraqis have a right to fight back. The entire opinion-forming mass media echoes this arrogant perspective. Bush defines resistance to U.S. aggression in Iraq as an act of "terrorism," and not a legitimate struggle to reclaim national sovereignty from the brutal occupation.

Bush declares that the 140,000 American occupation troops must remain to "defend Iraqi democracy" against the resistance. Aside from the obvious fact that the Quisling government of a subjugated country under foreign military control cannot qualify as a democracy, Bush disregards the fact that the raison d¹être of the resistance is predicated on the presence of occupation forces he refuses to withdraw.

The American antiwar movement is disunited on the important question of whether or not to support the right of the Iraqi people to resist U.S. aggression as best they can, including by force of arms. No group that supports the resistance puts this view forward as a basis for working with other peace groups. It is as a statement of political principle, not a unity demand.

Within the broad political spectrum of the peace movement, many local and national peace groups either oppose supporting Iraqi's right to resist the occupation or refuse to take a public position. Most of these groups entertain moderate or liberal agendas. A number of left groups, however, are certainly included.

One of the two principal peace coalitions in the United States, United for Peace and Justice, does not put forward the view that the Iraqi people have a right to resistance U.S. aggression or address the question at its rallies, according to its leadership, because some groups in UPJ "strongly oppose" that view.

The other national coalition, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), takes the following position, in response to our query May 27:

"We support the right of self-determination in the struggle against imperialist domination, and believe the Iraqi people have the right to resist occupation by any means chosen. The right to resist occupation is a concept enshrined in international law. . . . This is not a matter of political or ideological affinity. Nor is it an issue of the tactics of war --al of which are ugly. It boils down to this simple equation: On the one side are all the forces fighting a war against colonialism and occupation, and on the other side are the colonialists, neo-colonialists and their Iraqi agents. In that struggle we take an unambiguous position opposing the colonizers. To do otherwise would be to put entirely secondary issues --ideology, war tactics, etc. --at the forefront, while ignoring the core issue of colonialism in Iraq and elsewhere. Moreover, since we are a U.S. antiwar movement, and it is our country that has invaded Iraq, we are obligated to be crystal clear on this issue."

This writer is in agreement with that position, as was the case in the 1960s, well before ANSWER came along, when sectors of the antiwar movement vociferously objected to supporting the struggle, or at least supporting the right to struggle, of the National Liberation Front to free southern Vietnam from an even more treacherous American intervention.

We will discuss the various views circulating in the peace movement and on the left, but first let¹s examine the importance, composition, and methodologies of the Iraqi resistance.

It is crucial to understand that were it not for the Iraqi resistance, the U.S. would have won a swift victory in Iraq and quickly implemented the Bush administration's neoconservative plan to extend American hegemony throughout the entire Middle East under the guise of "promoting democracy." Had Iraq simply surrendered, this example of the Pentagon's invincibility would have demoralized the entire region. It certainly would have tempted the White House to barge into "rogue" Syria and Iran to replace their governments with regimes subordinate not only to Washington but to the requirements of corporate globalization and transnational capital, which, after all, is what "democratization" is all about.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even had a simple formula for obtaining this objective. Conservative Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, who supports the notion that an explicit American empire would be good for the world, wrote in the New York Times May 24 that Rumsfeld was guided by a theoretical blueprint for conquest called the "10-30-30 timetable: 10 days should suffice to topple a rogue regime, 30 days to establish order in its wake, and 30 more days to prepare for the next military undertaking."

The resistance, thus, has erected two great obstacles in the path of President Bush's drive to control the vast petroleum reserves that have transformed barren deserts into the most strategically important region of the world today. First, the myth of invincibility has been shattered by a small irregular urban guerrilla force, Rumsfeld's plans for conquest have gone up in smoke, and the Bush administration has evidently curbed some of its more unsavory ambitions.

Second, the unexpected difficulties the resistance has created for Washington¹s occupation force, supplemented by the existence of a large U.S. antiwar movement ,have been the main reason why a majority of the American people feel that the Iraq war has not been worth the cost of U.S. lives and dollars. This sentiment may undermine Bush for the rest of his term in office unless the resistance is broken quickly, which is now the Bush administration¹s highest priority.

The nature of the fight back itself has been grossly distorted by the mass media at the behest of the White House. It is important in this regard to recognize three things: 1. The resistance is composed of political as well as armed elements. 2. The masses of Iraqis oppose the occupation and want U.S. troops to get out. 3. The resistance enjoys support from the people of Iraq, despite U.S. efforts to neutralize various constituencies through pressure, manipulation, grandiose promises, threats and bribery. How else could an armed urban guerrilla force function in heavily occupied territory without the support of the people?

The forces of resistance are diverse, decentralized and led by many different factions, including reactionary fundamentalists. There are no discernable left socialists or communists in the leadership, largely because the left has been suppressed for decades. Elements in the resistance range from patriotic secular nationalists to secular Ba¹athists, to Sunni and Shia religious fundamentalists, to pan-Islamic foreign jihadists, to tribal-based groups with militias and so on. This is partially a reflection of the religious and ethnic differences of an historic nature which the foreign invader has taken pains to exacerbate under the old colonial rule of divide and conquer.

Many of these groups use different tactics, armed or political, to weaken the enemy. Their activities are often not coordinated, and the actions of one are not necessarily the practices of another. But together they comprise an effective fighting opposition to Bush of Baghdad and his Iraqi minions seeking power in a government controlled by history's sixth (or is it seventh?) empire to call Mesopotamia its own caliphate < this time ruled from Christendom-on-Potomac.

The resistance war is largely being fought with small arms and homemade bombs. There are no countries who would dare supply more powerful weapons for fear of instant retaliation from the United States. Arrayed against these forces is an occupying power possessing the greatest arsenal of weapons, tanks, planes, communications equipment and surveillance devices in human history. Aside from street patrols, supply convoys, campaigns to round-up anti-U.S. suspects and occasional large-scale attacks, American forces are protected in military bases that are extremely difficult to penetrate. There are no hiding places for combatants, such as forests and mountains, forcing them to fight almost exclusively in heavily populated cities, towns and along certain highways.

These subjective and objective conditions determine the composition of the resistance and the means deployed to oust the invader. This is why the car bomb and suicide bombers are deployed in the towns and cities. They are the most powerful weapons the guerrillas have, and they can be transported in daylight. The targets are police stations, military checkpoints, passing U.S. patrols and officials who cooperate with the occupation authorities. The nature of car bombings in such tight quarters results in civilians casualties, but they are rarely if ever the primary target. Some of the attacks that seem directed only at civilians may well reflect sectarian religious provocations, not necessarily associated with the resistance.

Why do many antiwar groups and sectors of the left withhold support from the Iraqi resistance, or even the right to resistance? Clearly, this reluctance strengthens Bush¹s contention that the resistance is composed of nothing but unworthy terrorists intent upon crushing Iraq's nascent "democracy," the latest justification for keeping the army of occupation in Iraq indefinitely.

The pacifists are in a different situation than the rest of the movement on this question. They in principle oppose both defensive as well as offensive violence, and many would support nonviolent resistance to the American occupation, not that there appears to be any. At issue are those larger sectors of the movement which do not oppose violence in principal and who would utilize violence to ward off an attack on America or other countries, but who will not extend that right to Iraq, the very country their government is oppressing.

In our view, there are two reasons the liberal sector of the peace movement in particular tends to withhold support from the insurgency. First there is the political factor, as demonstrated in last year¹s presidential elections where the candidate virtually all liberals supported was committed to winning a victory in Iraq. John Kerry's pro-war stance continues to reverberate, manifesting itself in a variety of subtle ways.

Some antiwar friends have told me that they hesitate to call for immediate withdrawal "because we are in so deep it would cause chaos if we pulled out now." For others, who frequently proclaim they "support the troops," it's must difficult to suggest the resistance has a right to kill those troops in defense of national sovereignty. Others are beset by the possibility that the Iraqi people might be better off today than under the previous regime which Bush deposed, despite the war, occupation, 100,000 deaths, deepening chaos and the prospect of civil war.

The second reason seems be a desire for respectability coupled with the fear that appearing to support the resistance will cause the right-wing to label individuals and the movement "unpatriotic" and "disloyal." These are serious charges, but today¹s dreadful political environment is not comparable to periods of repression in the past, such as when they were leveled in the red-hunting 1950s or a few years after World War I. In any event, the right-wing already claims the entire movement is composed of traitors, communists, flag burners, and Bush haters. That's just every day rightist rhetoric.

The political left is also divided on the question. Many left groups, peace organizations with an anti-imperialist perspective, socialists and those further to the left explicitly support the right of Iraq to engage in a guerrilla war to defeat aggression.

But some others on the left express various qualms, mostly about the composition and the tactics of some elements in the resistance. Several sources said they were uncomfortable because "there are Ba¹athist elements active in the struggle and we don't want to see the return of forces favorable to Saddam Hussein," as though the question of who will ultimately govern Iraq is for the American left to decide. Others hold back because "Sunni Wahabbists" are part of the diverse fight-back effort. And of course the supposed presence of al-Qaeda operatives, although very small in number, is another reason. Additional arguments are critical of guerrilla tactics.

Another sector of the left and antiwar movement is simply resorting to political expediency and perhaps a soupçon of opportunism, modifying its views in order to attract "mainstream" elements to its banner and if that means not backing the right to resistance (or for that matter, not calling for an end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories), so be it. Others see the resistance as constituting an obstacle to the creation of an improbable progressive coalition of forces in Iraq who are essentially passive toward the occupation in order to contest for influence, or at least be invited to table where the powerful dine. Some are supporters of the course followed by the Iraqi Communist Party (which opposes the resistance, seeks a place at the aforementioned table, and is willing to work with the occupation).

In a recent conversation in New York following the 2005 Left Forum this writer was confronted by several people of social-democratic and left disposition (who strongly supported immediate withdrawal) after indicating that it was correct to back the right to resistance. "Do you support car-bombings that kill innocent civilians, too? I was asked by one. "Do you think it¹s okay that they behead and kidnap people?" said another. "Do you want the Ba'athists to put in another Saddam?" queried a third. "Why not give the middle forces in Iraq a chance to work things out without the background noise of guerrilla war continually disrupting any chance of dialogue?" intoned a fourth. And lastly, "Doesn¹t your position lead to civil war?"

My reply, in effect, was a follows:

It is not up to the peace movement and the left in the United States to dictate the terms by which a subject people is allowed to manifest opposition to the violent invasion and occupation of their own country by our government. The Iraqi people, like all people throughout the world, are entitled to wage their struggle against foreign invaders by any means at their disposal.

Given that the Iraqi people suffered a dozen years of killer sanctions and frequent bombings by U.S. and British warplanes, followed by a "shock-and-awe" invasion and a recklessly repressive and racist occupation that has deprived many of them of reasonable living conditions, their means are quite limited. Their entire society is under intense surveillance and there is no freedom for its people. They cannot fight a conventional war. They do not have an armed forces to defend their rights. The task of the army of the unemployed, who are being trained by the Pentagon to be members of the "Iraqi Army," is to suppress the struggle for national liberation on behalf of the invader. So they use the means and tactics at their command.

Does that mean one must therefore support some of the excesses of the resistance? No. It means we recognize that in any struggle of this nature excesses take place, although they are simply not comparable to the "excesses" involved in George Bush's attack on Iraq. If we are so concerned about excesses, the task is not to haughtily distance ourselves from the resistance but to intensify our campaign to remove the root cause of the resistance, which is the continuing occupation and domination of a sovereign country. At this stage, and I hope I'm wrong, the U.S. has caused such a catastrophic disintegration of a complex and ancient society that it will take a long time with many hardships before things settle down, even if the U.S. is kicked out."

Listen to what our conservative ally, former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter, had to say about this several months ago when he argued it was in Washington's interest to withdraw: "The battle for Iraq's sovereign future is a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. As things stand, it appears that victory will go to the side most in tune with the reality of the Iraqi society of today: the leaders of the anti-U.S. resistance. . . . "

If the U.S. continues its present course, he suggests, "We will suffer a decade-long nightmare that will lead to the deaths of thousands more Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. We will witness the creation of a viable and dangerous anti-American movement in Iraq that will one day watch as American troops unilaterally withdraw from Iraq every bit as ignominiously as Israel did from Lebanon. The calculus is quite simple: the sooner we bring our forces home, the weaker this movement will be. And, of course, the obverse is true: the longer we stay, the stronger and more enduring this byproduct of Bush's elective war on Iraq will be. There is no elegant solution to our Iraqi debacle. It is no longer a question of winning but rather of mitigating defeat."

Whether sectors of our movement support the right to resistance or not, the fact remains that this major setback for the Bush administration would not have come pass without the extraordinary uprising that developed in the aftermath of Rumsfeld¹s "10 day" war and 30-day restoration of order." When the first signs of a fightback occurred, Bush smirked, "Bring 'em on!" Well, as an antiwar activist who of course would prefer a resistance movement with a different political leadership, I'm just glad they exercised their right to resist, or to "come on", as Bush taunted.

Without that fightback by the Iraqi resistance, a triumphant Bush by now might be dancing a jig in Damascus or Teheran, or wherever else his neoconservative inclinations and tanks were prepared to lead him.

Jack Smith: jacdon [at] earthlink.net

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12147&hd=0&size=1&l=e