Monday, May 09, 2005
U.S. army: even when they're losing, they're winning
The U.S. army is celebrating the death of 265 Iraqis in the past week:
Who's Fighting Whom
They assume the insurgency is led by al-Zarqawi. Whereas members of the resistance themselves say that Islamic hard-liners are, at most, 5-10% of the movement. (See "The Iraqi Resistance is a Popular Resistance") The U.S. army also likes to claim the insurgency is only hurting fellow Iraqis, when by its own (leaked) admission, from 1 November 2004 to 12 March 2005 there were a total of 3,306 attacks in the Baghdad area. Of these, 2,400 were directed against Coalition Forces. ("Bomb Kills British Soldier on Iraq Patrol") So, despite the media focus on Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, the majority of attacks are directed at the occupation forces.
However, the sectarian strife that does exist fits neatly with American foreign policy goals all along: the division (formal or not) of Iraq along ethnic/religious lines, incapable of mounting a sustained nationalist resistance to an American presence. (See Gilbert Achar, "Whither Iraq?") No wonder, then, that despite its hand-wringing condemning ethnic bloodshed, the U.S. is encouraging sectarianism, arming ethnic chauvinist militias in a divide-and-conquer strategy. ("Unravelling Iraq's Secret Militias")
What Resistance?
In the midst of this imperialist mess, the Iraqi resistance is continuing its struggle to rid Iraq of occupiers. There's a fierce debate among anti-war activists whether to support the resistance. In past blog entries I've given blanket support; I'd like to qualify that now.
There are many resistances, as the 'Popular Resistance' link above shows. Some are are nationalist, others Islamic or socialist, and most are a mix of the three. How do you decide between them?
#1) You don't decide. Some anti-war leftists say that all Iraqi resistance must be supported, no matter what it's character. Since U.S. imperialism is the bigger enemy, we're in no position to choose our friends. Even the most reactionary Islamic fundamentalist militia is objectively anti-imperialist. Roughly speaking, this is a position taken by most Maoists.
#2) Others promote secular, nationalist and/or progressive forces defending Iraq from occupiers. Those forces who use terror against Iraqis themselves, and impose Islamic laws where they operate, are another reactionary force not much better than the imperialists themselves. This is the position of some Trotskyists and the 'worker-communist' political groups.
I support the latter position. I don't think Islamic fundamentalist forces pose any alternative to imperialism (I'm speaking of 'political Islamic' forces - those who seek to impose Quranic law on society. Obviously, most Iraqis are Muslim as a personal/cultural identity, and that's just fine.) Political Islamic forces are backed by Iran & Saudi Arabia - they're a product of sub-imperialisms. While in Iraq, they've targetted civilians, those they deem collaborators (e.g. people working at U.S. bases) and attacked 'westernized' students for their dress. (See Page 4 of Forward #51)
Some of the claims - that political Islam will usher in a new dark age - sound hysterical. But history shows otherwise. When political Islamists have come to power, as in Iran, they've slaughtered more leftists and secularists than the imperialists themselves. And they've proven willing accomplices to major imperialist powers - as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have shown.
I don't see why I should choose between reactionaries of east or west, when there are plenty of progressives in Iraq itself that need support: for example, the independent trade union movement.
I think it's too easy for western leftists to call for 'resistance at any price' and support any anti-American movement. But we don't have to live with the consequences. History shows numerous examples - the search for a 'progressive bourgeoisie' by Maoist & Stalinist Communist parties chief among them - why our enemy's enemy is not always our friend.
After one of the bloodiest weeks in Iraq since the fall of Saddam, US military officials have claimed that the dramatic upsurge in violence is proof they are close to breaking up the terrorist network of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.Of course, they also claimed the lull in attacks in February was proof the insurgency was failing. So, really, it doesn't matter what the insurgency does: the U.S. army is going to declare itself victorious, no matter what. And they wonder why no one believes them.
Who's Fighting Whom
They assume the insurgency is led by al-Zarqawi. Whereas members of the resistance themselves say that Islamic hard-liners are, at most, 5-10% of the movement. (See "The Iraqi Resistance is a Popular Resistance") The U.S. army also likes to claim the insurgency is only hurting fellow Iraqis, when by its own (leaked) admission, from 1 November 2004 to 12 March 2005 there were a total of 3,306 attacks in the Baghdad area. Of these, 2,400 were directed against Coalition Forces. ("Bomb Kills British Soldier on Iraq Patrol") So, despite the media focus on Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, the majority of attacks are directed at the occupation forces.
However, the sectarian strife that does exist fits neatly with American foreign policy goals all along: the division (formal or not) of Iraq along ethnic/religious lines, incapable of mounting a sustained nationalist resistance to an American presence. (See Gilbert Achar, "Whither Iraq?") No wonder, then, that despite its hand-wringing condemning ethnic bloodshed, the U.S. is encouraging sectarianism, arming ethnic chauvinist militias in a divide-and-conquer strategy. ("Unravelling Iraq's Secret Militias")
What Resistance?
In the midst of this imperialist mess, the Iraqi resistance is continuing its struggle to rid Iraq of occupiers. There's a fierce debate among anti-war activists whether to support the resistance. In past blog entries I've given blanket support; I'd like to qualify that now.
There are many resistances, as the 'Popular Resistance' link above shows. Some are are nationalist, others Islamic or socialist, and most are a mix of the three. How do you decide between them?
#1) You don't decide. Some anti-war leftists say that all Iraqi resistance must be supported, no matter what it's character. Since U.S. imperialism is the bigger enemy, we're in no position to choose our friends. Even the most reactionary Islamic fundamentalist militia is objectively anti-imperialist. Roughly speaking, this is a position taken by most Maoists.
#2) Others promote secular, nationalist and/or progressive forces defending Iraq from occupiers. Those forces who use terror against Iraqis themselves, and impose Islamic laws where they operate, are another reactionary force not much better than the imperialists themselves. This is the position of some Trotskyists and the 'worker-communist' political groups.
I support the latter position. I don't think Islamic fundamentalist forces pose any alternative to imperialism (I'm speaking of 'political Islamic' forces - those who seek to impose Quranic law on society. Obviously, most Iraqis are Muslim as a personal/cultural identity, and that's just fine.) Political Islamic forces are backed by Iran & Saudi Arabia - they're a product of sub-imperialisms. While in Iraq, they've targetted civilians, those they deem collaborators (e.g. people working at U.S. bases) and attacked 'westernized' students for their dress. (See Page 4 of Forward #51)
Some of the claims - that political Islam will usher in a new dark age - sound hysterical. But history shows otherwise. When political Islamists have come to power, as in Iran, they've slaughtered more leftists and secularists than the imperialists themselves. And they've proven willing accomplices to major imperialist powers - as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have shown.
I don't see why I should choose between reactionaries of east or west, when there are plenty of progressives in Iraq itself that need support: for example, the independent trade union movement.
I think it's too easy for western leftists to call for 'resistance at any price' and support any anti-American movement. But we don't have to live with the consequences. History shows numerous examples - the search for a 'progressive bourgeoisie' by Maoist & Stalinist Communist parties chief among them - why our enemy's enemy is not always our friend.
