Supporting the Iraqi 'militia'

49 posts / 0 new
Last post
Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Aug 21 2004 12:12
Supporting the Iraqi 'militia'

Despite their religous dogma and hierachical organisation the iraqi resistance, particularly in Fallujah and Najaf have consistently foiled US/Allawi attempts to silence dissent in iraq in order to freely construct a country that is sympathetic to US economic interests. Poorly armed and outnumbered the resistance continues not only to hinder Mr Bush's election campaign but also to hit the oil markets, making the extraction of oil from iraq a more pricely process than originally forecast by those companies who sort to profit from an assault on the iraqi people.

The imposition of a leader upon the resistance in the form of cleric Al'sadr, has come about as much from 'alliance' propaganda as his rabble rousing rhetoric. The imposition of a leader on the resistance movement gives the US/Allawi coalition a chance to attempt to silence the resistance by assimilating the leader into the new iraqi system or forcing him to surrender and disarm 'his' militia. Without a leader the resistance, due to its scope and amorphous nature, is hard to track down, issue orders to and ultimately neutralise. The US is very much hoping that by capturing, assimilating or killing al' sadr that they will be able to placate the resistance. It is interesting how the media in the last few weeks in particular have been positing the view that the assault is on behalf of al' sadr against some sort of quasi-democratic order in iraq that is hell bent on installing freedom and democracy in the country. When in reality allawi is just a CIA funded mouth peice of the US administration.

PaulMarsh's picture
PaulMarsh
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 22 2004 00:15

Not sure that supporting my enemy's enemy is a good principle in practice - look what happended to the Yanks when they supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

As we said in Class War after September 11th the cure (Islamic fundamentalism) turned out to be worse than the disease (Soviet Communism)

I also think there is a danger going down this route of echoing the SWPs "Victory to the Resistance" line - a line which is more about dissing the Yanks and/or sucking up to certain British Muslim groups, than it is about any objective analysis.

captainmission
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Aug 22 2004 15:12

yeah but ain't this 'support' in the daft trot way- having resolutions or talking about it to you're other trot friends in a pub. What's the point in developing 'ideological sound' positions on events you have no possiblity (or any real intention) of having any effect on? Fine if your going to go out and join the militia or smuggle them arms, but otherwise it just political masterbation (which is alot less fun than the real stuff).

PaulMarsh's picture
PaulMarsh
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 22 2004 15:28

Agreed.........

I somehow can't see too many Trots heading off to Iraq in the next months!

PaulMarsh's picture
PaulMarsh
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 22 2004 16:41
Jack wrote:
PaulMarsh wrote:
Not sure that supporting my enemy's enemy is a good principle in practice - look what happended to the Yanks when they supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

As we said in Class War after September 11th the cure (Islamic fundamentalism) turned out to be worse than the disease (Soviet Communism)

Are you suggesting that Ismalic fundamentalism is a "worse" as a threat to US interests than the Soviet bloc???

Quote:

I also think there is a danger going down this route of echoing the SWPs "Victory to the Resistance" line - a line which is more about dissing the Yanks and/or sucking up to certain British Muslim groups, than it is about any objective analysis.

Do the SWP actually have this line? I thought they were staying rather neutral on it, neither committing to attacking the resistance (ala AWL) not to full blown "Victory to the resistance" (ala Workers Power). Given their current populist orientation, I just don't see them given full support to anti-Imperialist Iraqi forces.

What we meant was Islamic fundamentalism was a worse threat to us (i.e the working class) than the Soviet bloc, although its a moot point as to whether it is also a bigger threat to the US - religions tend to last longer than economic systems!

On your second point .......

The SWP have done flyposting in London with the slogan "Victory to the Resistance".

They are also very, very crass - the day after the Madrid bombings, they stickered my area of Hackney with the slogan "Release the Guantanomo Prisoners" - I did ask if their sister group was putting up similar stickers in Madrid, but never got a reply .......

AnarchoAl
Offline
Joined: 29-05-04
Aug 22 2004 23:33

I say victory to the resistance... it won't be great but 'independent nationalist' governments tend to be better for the people than some ex-CIA strongman. Someone like Sistani could bring unity and a degree of social justice. Not a libertarian paradise, but the Iraqi anarchist movement is weak I think so take the best you can get..,

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Aug 23 2004 15:30

Those idiots supporting the resistance might like to hear about the sharia law imposed on areas run by the mehdi, the woking class people executed for opposing them, or for trying bring about working class self-organisation, for standing up for womens rights, for drinking, the lmass looting and theiving they do, the baathists they welcome if they have guns etc - the below site contains plenty of on the ground reports:

http://www.wpiraq.org/english/

Let's support one ruling class in their struggle against another ruling class in the battle to win the right to have their foot on the necks of the Iraqi working class shall we? How about supporting independent workling class action and initatives against both sets of bosses? You know, 'no war but the classwar' and all that - not petty nationalist tail-ending.

Why has class analysis gone straight out of the window when the chance of shoooting a few American economic conscripts arises - what about looking at the resistance and just who and what it represents - that's a quite a useful method you know, Big up Iran and the spread of its state interests!

The leftist drivel on this site over the last month is fucking astounding. Anarchists? I do fucking wonder sometimes.

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Aug 23 2004 15:37
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:

The imposition of a leader upon the resistance in the form of cleric Al'sadr, has come about as much from 'alliance' propaganda as his rabble rousing rhetoric. The imposition of a leader on the resistance movement gives the US/Allawi coalition a chance to attempt to silence the resistance by assimilating the leader into the new iraqi system or forcing him to surrender and disarm 'his' militia. Without a leader the resistance, due to its scope and amorphous nature, is hard to track down, issue orders to and ultimately neutralise. The US is very much hoping that by capturing, assimilating or killing al' sadr that they will be able to placate the resistance. It is interesting how the media in the last few weeks in particular have been positing the view that the assault is on behalf of al' sadr against some sort of quasi-democratic order in iraq that is hell bent on installing freedom and democracy in the country. When in reality allawi is just a CIA funded mouth peice of the US administration.

Do you even know what the Mahdi army is and who's funding it? You're simply conflating a perfect abstract model of resistance with the actual real shit going on now, and totally disregarding the content. I don't know about corspes in mouths mate, but there's certainly a whole load of shit coming from yours.

(Oh yeah, it's not 1968 anymore - thought you might like to know)

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Aug 24 2004 12:18

Cheers for the bile!

I never even attempted to say that the mehdi army were revolutionaries, philanthropists or in any way friends of the working class in iraq (though al'sadr does take most of his support from the lower echelons of society), never the less their resistance, along with other instances of armed resistance in iraq, is severely damaging the plans of the US to happily exploit the resources of iraq. I'm not attempting to support one form of fanaticism for another, simply pointing out the effectiveness of their struggle.

Its easy to get suckered into abstractly supporting one hierachical group against another as a psuedo glimmer of light, i'm sorry if it came across this way

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Aug 24 2004 12:39

''yeah vagappreciationclub t isn't 1968 and the situationists were middle class(in the real sense) tossers who superficially reworked Marx's "fetishism of the commodity" into a overcooked analysis called the spectacle''

The situationists were largely middle-class, but their development of Marx's critique of the capitalist system goes way beyond any of the other revolutionary theory of the time. They highlighted the subtle defences of contemporary capitalism while pointing to an enlarged proletariat as the author of any meaningful change, they repudiated the bollox that marcuse and his mates spouted about the working class being 'incorporated' and passified and were vindicated in their analysis by the events of 1968, in which they played a incredibly insignificant role.

Their theory of 'recuperation' in particular is relevant to any contemporary movement for real change and should be understood as a result.

Obviously infatuation with past 'victories' breads terrible defeats, however i havent read any analysis which is either as insightful or as relevant as the situationists. which has eminated in the last few decades.

The name 'vaneigemappreciationclub' is ironic.

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Aug 24 2004 18:21

‘’anyway im still waiting for an anaswer as to how the "spectacle" is not just the application of Marx's fetishism of commodities to comtemporary capital’’

The spectacle is a representation of life, a false consciousness for consumption, a celebration of the existing society, a very real illusion. ‘’The spectacle is the self portrait of power in the age of powers totalitarian rule over the conditions of existence’’ (Debord, 1967, 19). The spectacle permeates every area of manufactured social life, it is in the design of the streets, tv, culture, consumer goods, adverts etc etc. All manner of distractions and blindfolds.

For Debord the individual in contemporary society had become a passive spectator of an illusion or a laudatory monologue on behalf of the existing system. Debord writes that ‘The Spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images’ (Debord, 1967; 12). In its specific and most simple form the spectacle can be seen as the mass media (TV, news, show business, advertising), the practice of mass consumption and the architecture which is built to facilitate the efficiency of labour, consumption and the general functioning of the dominant economic system. As Anselm Jappe states ‘Not just work, but likewise other sorts of human activity-what is known as ‘free-time’-are organised in such a way as to justify and perpetuate the reigning mode of production’ (Jappe, 1999; 10) The spectacle is the agenda of the ruling economic and social system, it’s a one way dialogue, it announces that ‘all that is good will appear, everything that appears (within the spectacle) is good’ (Debord, 1967; 15). Debord asserts that this spectacle ‘corresponds to the historical moment at which the commodity completes its colonisation of social life’ (Debord, 1967; 29). In essence the point at which the whole of everyday life is organised in accordance with the rational of commodity relations.

The modern spectacle ‘depicts what society can deliver, but within this depiction what is permitted is rigidly distinguished from what is possible’ (Debord, 1967; 20). Importantly for Debord this passification, mechanisation and division has lead to what he termed the ‘proletarianization of the world’ (Debord, 1967; 21). The average individual has no effective choice or control within the existing order. It is this struggle between those who organise society and those who are ‘being positioned in a perspective (Vaneigem, 2001; 93), which now characterises the class struggle for Debord. In accordance with this those who may be considered proletarian are ‘all people who have no possibility of altering the social space-time that society allots for their consumption’ (Knabb, 1981; 108).

In the first edition of The Society of the Spectacle Debord identified a diffuse and concentrated spectacle, being present in the western capitalist societies and Soviet Russia, which he saw as a state capitalist society, respectively. However he comments in the preface to the third edition that these realms of the spectacle had given way to a new form of the spectacle which could be observed in most economically developed countries. The old differences had been superseded by the ‘integrated spectacle’ in which the spectacle ‘has spread itself to the point where it now permeates all reality’ (Debord, 1990; 9).

Whilst I understand Marx’s fetishism theory to be the phenomena of considering products of labour simply as consumer goods, ignoring or overlooking the toil of the proletariat and their objectification into products themselves in the course of production.

Now I can see the similarities between these two theories in that they both relate to ‘false consciousness’. However surely the spectacle is an attempt to perpetuate and broaden ‘false consciousness’ while fetishism is a form of ‘false consciousness’?

The theory of the spectacle and in particular the notion of ‘false desires’ like ‘false needs’ is one that can be manipulated and easily misunderstood, whilst also being ambiguous. It is not for anyone else to tell you what you desire and what you shouldn’t want (as advertisers do). I’m sure that there are people who can sit in front of a screen all day and feel quite contented whilst playing with a substitute for real life. Its also clear that this isnt , for want of a better word, a natural or real desire as it is created, by a company with ideological and economic interests and is a spectacle, something to be consumed, rather than lived. Now computer games, interactive tv etc etc, perhaps create some ambiguity, in that advertisers will tell you that ‘you are in control’ or that you can live another life, or realise your desires, however it should be patently obvious that this isnt ‘reality’ nor a ‘desire’ but a created need, a temporary escape. I suppose it depends whether you are content with existing in a manufactured, intangible, representation of life as an escape from reality or conversely you wish to change reality so to realise your own desires, eg having total control over the direction and content of your own life and ultimately being a free individual.

murat
Offline
Joined: 29-01-04
Aug 24 2004 18:43
Quote:
never the less their resistance, along with other instances of armed resistance in iraq, is severely damaging the plans of the US to happily exploit the resources of iraq

I don't think this is true.

The US elites are I'd imagine pretty content with the overall sitaution- including the Mehdi army.

No significant change in control of resources (including oil + building materials industries) included has occured.

The Mehdi army is "severely damaging" little apart from wc peoples' lives (Iraqi + US + UK).

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Aug 24 2004 20:39

'Situationism' may exist but i dont believe that i am one of its pupils.

Its clear to see from your rhetoric that you arent consumed by false consciousness however that doesnt automatically mean that false consciousness/social conditioning and illusions dont exist.

I think the situationists differentiated between individual spectacles, eg gladatorial battles in the coloseum, and the society of the spectacle, where capital shows itself in images.

While a lot of commentators believ the society of the spectacle was a post war phenomena, i think it can be dated back to perhaps the 1920's america, where spectacle was used as a political tool, or even the birth of the football league in the 1870's

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Aug 24 2004 20:43

''The Mehdi army is "severely damaging" little apart from wc peoples' lives (Iraqi + US + UK).''

I'm not entirely sure about this assault on the lives of working class britons by the mehdi army, however on the point of the oil, oil prices are rising not simply because of the whole classic 'supply and demand' but because it is becoming increasingly expensive to pump oil because of the attacks on pipelines and offices in iraq and the cost of defence to attempt to defend against such attacks.

captainmission
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Aug 24 2004 23:24
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:
...but because it is becoming increasingly expensive to pump oil because of the attacks on pipelines and offices in iraq and the cost of defence to attempt to defend against such attacks.

so that would be problems with supply then? roll eyes

murat
Offline
Joined: 29-01-04
Aug 25 2004 17:14
Quote:
I'm not entirely sure about this assault on the lives of working class britons by the mehdi army

Are you being serious?

A few links for good measure

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14547283&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=killed-soldier-to--quit-army--name_page.html

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=14569637&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=from-the-frontline-name_page.html

Quote:
but because it is becoming increasingly expensive to pump oil because of the attacks on pipelines and offices in iraq and the cost of defence to attempt to defend against such attacks.

In what way does this strengthen the position of us as a class either here or USA or Iraq or anywhere else?

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Aug 25 2004 17:28

The 'problem of supply' is posed as a problem of not being able to get enough of any product, not primarily the cost.

And as for the attacks on the working class of briton, a soldier is trained primarily to kill to working classes of other nations, yes they may play 'peacekeepers' now and then, but they are primarily trained to kill, and be effective with it. In the case of a war the working classes tend to mutilate each other.

The cost of oil does very little for the working classes of any nation, i mean hey it costs them more to get to work!

However i cant beleive that i'm the only one who stopped thinking about the plight of the 'working classes' (some abstract concept) and had a good laugh at the obstacle facing a rampant US military and government in their quest to get a cheap and healthy supply of oil from iraq to fuel the demands of their economic system.

murat
Offline
Joined: 29-01-04
Aug 25 2004 21:58
Quote:
And as for the attacks on the working class of briton, a soldier is trained primarily to kill to working classes of other nations, yes they may play 'peacekeepers' now and then, but they are primarily trained to kill, and be effective with it. In the case of a war the working classes tend to mutilate each other.

Soldiers in many, many areas perform peacekeeping and humanitarian duties.

90% of the time a regular or a reserve's activities are honourable.

Quote:
However i cant beleive that i'm the only one who stopped thinking about the plight of the 'working classes' (some abstract concept) and had a good laugh at the obstacle facing a rampant US military and government in their quest to get a cheap and healthy supply of oil from iraq to fuel the demands of their economic system.

I am genuinly puzzled as to what exactly is funny in any of this.

You seem to be suggesting

Trouble in exporting oil from Iraq = happiness for libertarians.

I don't see why that sould be the case.

Besides oil in USA is still very cheap compared with just about every other part of the world- and the supply from Iraq has been continuing relatively efficiently.

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Aug 26 2004 10:48
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:

The cost of oil does very little for the working classes of any nation, i mean hey it costs them more to get to work!

However i cant beleive that i'm the only one who stopped thinking about the plight of the 'working classes' (some abstract concept) and had a good laugh at the obstacle facing a rampant US military and government in their quest to get a cheap and healthy supply of oil from iraq to fuel the demands of their economic system.

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely absurd and simplistic. Oil is the commodity whose price largely determines that of most other domestic commodities, when it rises so do they - it is used in the production of plastics and most other things, as well as increasing transportation costs - all of which reduce working class income and shift value to capital. A rise in oil prices is an attack on the working class, not a block to capital accumulation.

Take a look at what happened in the 1970s with the oil crisis when prices rose massively - the overflowing petrodollars from OPEC were recycled through western banks and used to attack the working and living conditions of the worldwide working class by introducing new automated work processes, chasing the too powerful 'mass worker' out of the workplace, and shifting the less technologically advanced work to the 'third world' with it's lower labour and production costs - a process which entailed the destruction of the 'commons' in those countries and a paralell chasing of the people into the new factories through various repressive measures - a 'new enclosures'.

Now, just what was it that the situationists tried to hammer home about 'the totality'?

There simply is not, and never has been an inherent need for the US to have cheap oil prices - i suggest you read something from a tradtion outside of the situtationists - those inspired by operaismo and 'autonomy' for example - i'd suggest starting with 'Midnight Oil: Work, Energy and War'

Wayne
Offline
Joined: 28-12-03
Aug 27 2004 15:03
Quote:
"anyway im still waiting for an anaswer as to how the "spectacle" is not just the application of Marx's fetishism of commodities to comtemporary capital’’

Here, Vaginappreciationclub, you missed your moment... The answer you were looking for, in the style of Debord, was:

"I'm not staying here to answer cuntish questions like that!" at which point you and all your situ buddies storm out of this forum and denounce it to anyone who will listen until your untimely death a few decades later.

Here's another chance... Baudrillard's theory of hyper-reality is better than Debord's theory of the spectacle, isn't it?

I know all this 'cos I used to go out with a situationist... She spent a lot of time in coffee houses.

Augusto_Sandino
Offline
Joined: 21-02-04
Aug 27 2004 23:05

Why would you want to support them? Theyre pushing for the introduction of Shariah Law and stuff. It would be like anarchists supporting the Catholic Church or the Spanish Inquisition or something...

Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Aug 29 2004 20:13

to be fair i should have put a question mark at the end of the statement 'supporting the iraqi militia'.

In regards to 'buthcherspoon' though, i dont believe it was simply the increase in oil prices in the 1970s that drove capital into LEDC countries, surely this process had been going on for a period of time before hand and the oil prices simply accelerated a trend. The price of transport is one cost but how about the labour costs, the cheap labour, un-unionised workforces and little call for safety restrictions in LEDC's surely played just as catalystic part in the process.

The movement of capital across borders doesnt have to be considered in a completely negative way, its globalised the working classes more than ever.

Is anyone here suggesting that the iraqi people (no matter what denomination) should stand by a nd let the oil reserves be sucked out of the country? Its not a matter of 'supporting' someone because of their religion, rather inspite of it, much of the humanitarian work done in central america in the 1980's early 90's, and probably still now is done by charitable priests and members of the church, now ok they may be mystified fools but in a roundabout way they do benevolent work. In the same way i implicitly and passively 'support' those who sabotage the oil wells and pielines in order to stem the pillage of oil.

If lower oil prices ment a wealthier working class and a more stable capitalism then shouldnt we back the coup planned for equitorial guinea in the hope that we can get a more efficient and reliable supply of oil into the country? I'm sure mr thatcher would be happy to oblige.

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Aug 29 2004 20:37

edit - ott.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 31 2004 16:12

lol, to quote an old Chinese proverb 'We've got a right stir-fry of garlic and pubic hair, here.' grin

I agree with one of Vg's initial point -- that making 'the Iraqi resistance' into one group is not useful to get a handle on what's happening. Most of the 'Shi'a' fighters are not linked to Sadr's organisation. His parent organisation, the Dawar Party has several faction itself, and then there's all the many factions and groups with not media profile.

I've talked to people from the Worker-Communist party quite a bit, even tried to read their guru Mansur Hekmeth's big book; it seem to me they're one of the few groups doing properly focussed secualr activity. However, they also do tend to get too worked up about the danger of Iraq going like Iran, with a theocracy taking over. The identity 'muslim' is a default one, and doesn't mean that an Iraqi revolution will go theocratic, any more than the 'christian' identities of the Spanish and Russian peasants meant that they all supported the bishops and primates.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Sep 4 2004 20:18

Surely the slogan 'victory to the resistance' is simply a blanket statement expressing the hope that 'coalition' troops are eventually forced to withdraw from iraq by any means neccessary.

Sure the mehdi army is shit, but with an iraqi based ruling class, or even a ruling class closely affiliated to neighbouring iran, capital will be concentrated in iraqi cities and not pumped into the US and UK down the oil pipelines thus enabling the strengthening of the iraqi working class.

Surely thats fairly basic anti-imperialist rhetoric.

While you recognise the fact that the majority of the iraqi national liberation movements are thouroughly bourgeois, you cannot dictate the character of a national liberation movement from within the imperialist nation. How can you effectively challenge imperialism if you yourself are dictating how the iraqis should be behaving.

john

ps personally i think the disruption of oil supply in the US and the UK would be a bloody good thing in the long run

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 5 2004 14:44

you big, fat, stinky trot jack roll eyes

Wayne
Offline
Joined: 28-12-03
Sep 5 2004 23:43

'Imperialism' often seems to be used as a wanky liberal alternative to thinking. If you have an argument that can be made on the basis of class based communist politics, make it and there is no need for 'imperialism' as a framework of analysis. The invasion of Iraq was opposed by liberals and Trots on the basis that it was imperialistic, contravened international law, etc. It was opposed by communists because it was clearly not in the interest of the working class in Iraq or elsewhere. If you can demonstrate that the activites of a bunch of overarmed fundamentalist lunatics killing working class people in Iraq just now is justifiable in terms of benefits to ordinary people in Iraq and elsewhere then explain why. Don't just say 'resistance to imperialism' 'cos it's a retreat to a nationalist liberal position.

Quote:
While you recognise the fact that the majority of the iraqi national liberation movements are thouroughly bourgeois, you cannot dictate the character of a national liberation movement from within the imperialist nation. How can you effectively challenge imperialism if you yourself are dictating how the iraqis should be behaving.

The idea that what happens in other countries is not our business is something that internationalist revolutionaries should be challenging not reinforcing. They have women in Iraq, you know? Maybe they don't want to be subjected to a strict interpretation of Islamic law. In fact, who fucking would? There is class struggle going on, strikes over wages, trade unions trying to secure basic rights for workers. That can be supported on the basis of class politics. Jihad can't.

Has anyone read the text on the 91 uprisings, 'The Kurdish Uprising & Kurdistan's Nationalist Shop Front & its Negotiations with

the Baathist/Fascist Regime' put out by Blob & Combustion? It's really brilliant, both as an insight into that uprising and also as an analysis of the counter-revolutionary nature of national liberation struggles. Most of the practice of the 'Iraqi resistance', loosely targetted car bombs, attacks on journalists, etc. is hard to defend. Their ambitions and theoretical ideas are indefinsible and explicitly hostile to the working class generally and to women and minorities in particular. We would not tolerate the chaos, destruction and intended totality and oppression in our country so why cheer lead it in Iraq?

There is a slightly racist undertone to the 'support the resistance' brigade that assumes the Jihad bams are the only prospect for resistance to US imposed neo-liberalism in Iraq. It forgets that in '91 there were workers councils set up while commandeered tanks opened fire on mosques. Okay, the communist movement is not so strong in Iraq just now but it's not great here either and we're not cheering for Nation of Islam. And I fucking hope we wouldn't be even if they were widespread and blowing shit up all the time.

How quickly people abandon their politics when it's a wee bit far away!

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Sep 6 2004 10:37

For anybody interested . . . . .

Quote:
Civil war risk tied to factional struggle

Thursday, September 02, 2004

By John Daniszewski, Los Angeles Times

LONDON -- Iraq will be lucky if it manages to avoid a breakup and civil war, and the country can become the spark for a vortex of regional upheaval, a report released yesterday by Britain's highly regarded Royal Institute of International Affairs has concluded.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04246/372093.stm

You can download the full report here.

http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/mep/BP0904.pdf

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Sep 6 2004 11:22

How is argueing that the primary objective should be to defeat imperialism ''wanky liberal rhetoric''.

Imperialism reduces industrialising nations to pseudo-feudal rubble. There is no compromise with imperialism, it has to be defeated at all costs.

I mean the reactionary islamists we are talking about here are the direct result of years of imperialism. So if the islamists and others somehow managed to drive coalition troops out of the area, a large section of support for their reactionary policies would decrease.

Looking across the border at iran, whenever US forces or US client states threaten iranian independence the power of the ayatollahs is far stronger.

Not only that but a lot of the talk on this thread generalises all national liberation movements as ''iraqi''. Iraq is a colonial invention of a state and a country of 26 million with three or four languages and a range of levels of authority.

Trade Unions and secular forces have strength in some areas or iraq, but in others islamists have near complete control and influence as the regional character of resistance demonstrates.

It would be extremely foolish to refuse to support one region of a country while supporting others, i mean have people learned absolutely nothing in history.....

The economic situations in 1991 and 2004 are vastly different, the working clas and working class movements are vastly weakened due to industrial decline and state repression. Personally i think the islamists represent the best chance of defeating imperialism in many regions of iraq though opbviously in some regions the islamists have little or no influence.

And finally lets not be liberal about it, the US have got thousands of troops in iraq, in their regions of influence the islamists have a major advantage over the secular left, they have GUNS from Iran. Its not like secular socialists can currently seize control of arms production is it, i doubt many weapons are currently being made in the factories of iraq itself. Yet again that last point is fairly basic anti-imperialist rhetoric.

john

ps as for the russian hostage situation comment, i think its fairly obvious that that was a grosse tactical error and bourgeois atrocity committed by a group of fanatics who have managed to lose chechynian national liberation movements a lot of their international sympathy. Its hardly contrubuted to the defeat of imperialism has it.

Mwoyo
Offline
Joined: 14-09-04
Sep 14 2004 17:16

How far is it morally justifiable to support the Iraqi resistance movement considering that ordinary people bear the brunt of the onslaught?

It's a tricky issue and when debating it, it would be prudent to remember that we are human beings first before we are political animals.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Sep 14 2004 17:41

My thoughts on this has led me to beleive that by supporting the militia would be supporting a revolutionary movement which will lead to a despotic non-secular society like that of Iran.

Anarchist reasoning has led me to believe that we must support the people in there predicament of being between a rock and a hard place, there is no real solution to there problems out of the already existing forces involved in the iraqi situation, we must give the iraqi people support in any way which is possible and viable for them to come up with a solution themselves.