Skip to content or view screen version

ON THE QUESTION OF THE IRAQI RESISTANCE

Jack A. Smith | 29.05.2005 17:05 | Analysis

Do the people of Iraq have the right to defend themselves against violent foreign invasion and occupation by any means at their disposal? Simple enough question, but wait until you hear the answers.

The following article appeared in the May 28 edition of the email Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter published in New Paltz, N.Y. It was written by the editor, Jack A. Smith.
Sub at  jacdon@earthlink.net

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

ON THE QUESTION OF THE IRAQI RESISTANCE

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 clutches of imperialism.

Now, of course, 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 d’être 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 resist U.S. aggression or address the question at its rallies, according to its leadership, because it “is strongly opposed by some groups in our coalition.”

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 — all 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 let’s 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 Washington’s 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 administration’s 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 Ba’athists, 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 Bush’s 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 year’s 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 must be 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 today’s 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 Ba’athist 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 it’s 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, “Doesn’t 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.”

And as a postscript to this reconstructed conversation I’ll add: At issue at this point is not the question of victory for the United States or a peaceful withdrawal without attaining its imperial objectives. Our ruling political parties are absolutely committed to victory, period. Thus, unless the resistance and our peace movement together can eventually force Washington to withdraw without fulfilling its intention to dominate Iraq for years or decades to come, the issue becomes one of victory or defeat.”

Under such conditions, those who oppose imperialism will say it should be defeat — and probably will be.

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.”

In a related analysis recently, Boston University’s William Robinson states that Bush’s project to transform Iraq by force into a “democracy” under U.S. control won’t work. “The Bush regime (along with other U.S. and transnational elites) hopes a ‘transition to democracy’ will provide a viable ‘exit’ strategy. . . . But this is close to impossible, a veritable imperial pipedream. Establishing a functioning polyarchy [in his definition, a limited ‘democracy’ controlled by subordinate elites] is a near impossibility, given the rivalries, petty ambitions, and struggles for the spoils of local power among the jackals, the political, ethnic and religious splits among them, the rise of counter-elites, the expanding resistance, and the dim prospects of pacifying a colonized and restive population.

“If the Iraq invasion and occupation is the most massive U.S. intervention since Vietnam, it is also the most stunning — indeed, insurmountable — chasm that we have seen since Washington’s Indochina quagmire between U.S. intent on the one hand, and the actual U.S. ability on the other hand, to control events and outcomes.”

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 Rumsfeld’s “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 wherever else his neoconservative inclinations and tanks were prepared to lead him.


Jack A. Smith
- e-mail: jacdon@earthlink.net

Comments

Hide the following 14 comments

seems odd to me

30.05.2005 00:16

that blowing up your own people is seen as a form of resistance against an occupying power.

sceptic


you are another idiot lefty loon

30.05.2005 01:01

so who would i rather run the world

1) the USA

2) mad mental islamic suicide bombing maniacs who accept no other religeon or race who hate gays and women and jews and christians, yeah lets all support them and blame america for everything.




You need to wake up from your american jew hating lefty dream and get real

betar boy


Any suggestions

30.05.2005 09:01

Well we have heard from you what you think should not have happended. How do you (or anyone else) think we should have got rid of Saddam ?

ben


Why Get rid of Saddam

30.05.2005 10:52

It seems to me that theres a growing number of ppl that like to talk out of their ass like the first three have. Why get rid of Saddam when

1) He only breached 13 UN resolutions when Israel has breached more than 70 (now theres a country that under US/UK mentality should be blown up at elast 5 times more than Iraq was.

2) The Iraqi ppl are now a lot likelier to be murdered than they were under Saddam

3) Its not about what YOU prefer u arrogant fucks its about what the Iraqi ppl prefer. And way over 90% do not want to be occupied. Saddam was never a threat to you and used to be Britains best friend even when he was commiting atrocities against his people and the Iranians (a war which had the Blessings of US/UK)

4)if It had to come down to chosing between Bush-Blair and co or saddam id have to go for the lesser of 2 evils so it would be Saddam. In his 30 years of power he did not initiate anywhere near as many wars as Bush and Blair have in half the time where they have been in power (Yugoslavia Afghanistan, Iraq) Interventions in the region of Africa, attempting to break up democratically elected governments as is the one in Venezuela, murdering through sanctions (cuba, Iraq) supporting and or actively trading and investing with other murderous govts (saudis kuwait zimbabwe)

It is more than safe to say that Bush,Blair and co have a lot more blood on their hands than Saddam did so go fuck yourselves you uneducated wankers. Nazi germany would be like a paradise to you.

Reply plz


Saddam was an ally of Al Qaeda read "The Connection".

30.05.2005 15:19

Read the book: "The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America" By Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard;
 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060746734/102-2279385-1295334?v=glance

Quote:
"Weekly Standard reporter Hayes marshals a wealth of evidence that, in contrast with the tenuous connections that have so far made news, point to ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda. Most intriguingly, Hayes finds links between Iraq and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, one of whom apparently received shelter and financial support from Iraq after the attack. Hayes also gets confirmation by Czech officials of the alleged Prague meeting between September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. Elsewhere, Hayes points to Iraqi intelligence documents that mention a "good relationship" with bin Laden. Other sources note an alleged agreement for Iraq to assist al-Qaeda in making chemical and biological weapons. Relying both on "open sources" like news articles, transcripts from the 1998 embassy bombing trials, as well as anonymous intelligence reports and informants, Hayes allows that some of these stories may prove unreliable. But he contends that the number, consistency and varied provenance of reports of high-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq throughout the past decade allows one to "connect the dots" into a clear pattern of collaboration. Despite the frustrating absence of source notes and no knowledge of what cooperative efforts ever came of these contacts, most readers will conclude from this volume that the Saddam–al-Queda thread has some play left in it."

Tom


10 / 10

30.05.2005 15:20

Nice one reply plz. You managed to avoid answering the question, bring Israel into it and put forward the remarkable idea that the Iraqi peole didn't want to see Saddam go.

Funny if not so tragic


Reply provided.

30.05.2005 15:20

1. UN resolutions. Number is irrelevant - what matters is how serious they are. A lot of General Assembly resolutions are designed to make a political point. Israeli bashing in the General Assembly is often a proxy for America bashing.

2. Oddly enough, under both Saddam and at present, the greatest danger of being murdered is by fellow Iraqis.

3. "Its not about what YOU prefer u arrogant fucks its about what the Iraqi ppl prefer." Exactly. And at least there's been some attempt to provide an elected Government post Saddam.
"And way over 90% do not want to be occupied." I'll agree with that. No one likes to be occupied. And the quickest way to get rid of the occupation is a return to a peaceful Iraq with a decently elected Government. No insurgency, no need for troops.

4. Yugoslavia - do you think Milosevic should have been allowed to carry on with ethnic cleansing?
'Murdering through sanctions'. Sanctions against Iraq were UN approved - and by that logic, you should approve of them too.
The Kuwaitis have a murderous government? News to me, and news to most of the people who live there.
'actively trading with saudis kuwaitis zimbabwe'.
Ah. perhaps you think we should impose sanctions on them? Hang on, that's murderous, isn't it?

sceptic


unreal you jew haters are ill

30.05.2005 16:22

Israel has broken this rule that rule, f-k the rules, saddam gassed 850000 people, israel have demolished a few terrorist houses but oh its Israel who are the worst because some jew hater twats in the UN say so.

Il tell you something we will defeat you nazis and you islamics as we have outlived every other enemy and if push comes to shove we will nuke the lot of you and you can all go to hell together

betar boy


Missed the point there me thinks

30.05.2005 16:51

Funny how in early 2001 the Bush administration was categorically denying the link between Saddam and al quaeda and by mid 2002 they were pushing forward the idea of a collaboration. Of course considering 3/4 of the sep 11th hijakers were saudis ud think that maybe theyd investigate saudi arabia but wait a minute....u cant do that they'er our friends. That book ur telling me about must be based on intelligence such as the british and american which would then automatically make it unintelligent as we saw '45' mins??? there werent any weapons to deploy in 45 mins.
Yugoslavias ethnic cleansing?? Hmmmm funny how Israel who's been commiting acts of ethnic cleansing for 60 years is considered an ally, yet Yugoslavia who i cant say I supported its govt is Public enemy no1. But obviously albanians are more important than palestinians right? surely! No1 said to impose sanctions on any1 coz that will only hit the people of a country. But when you impose sanctions on a country who was a friend when it was murdering its people and Iranians in the early 80's but later an enemy when it was invading Kuwait, and letting countries who have continued to kill people in other lands and and their own (israel, zimbabwe, saudi arabia and yes kuwait ( http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng) for non believers off the hook is hypocritical and therefore they cannot claim to be spreading democracy and freedom around the world.

Again the number of UN resolutions is not important its the seriousness of them  http://www.musalman.com/news/musalman-UN%20resolutions%20against%20Israel.htm
I gues these cant be serious enough. I mean its only palestinian lives were talking about right. What the hell are they worth?? definately less than albanian ones.

Reform in Iraq cannot take place when there are 14 permanent US bases planned to be built there. No anti war parties are allowed to stand in the 'free' elections. All economic arrangements are to be decided by the occupiers (thus the contracts being given to them)Did the Iraqi people want to get rid of Saddam? I wouldnt dout they did. Did they want it to happen with an invasion of the coalition 'fredom lovers'? Definately not. Real freedom can only be achieved if Iraqis can determine their own fate and believe it or not most Iraqis blame the US/UK and not the insurgency for the violence at the moment and want them out. A free Iraq is one controlled by its people and not by Halliburton and co. And always remember the 14 bases that will wave a US flag all over Iraq forever. No troops? Did u really think they went there to leave again? Too much oil and business to protect my friend. Double standards everywhere by the Freedom Loving West. WANKERS.

I CANT HEAR YOU....AYE AYE CAPTAINNNNNNN


missing the point

30.05.2005 19:12

perhaps I am - because the original post was about the Iraqi resistance, not the troubles of the world.

and let's say the 'resistance' wins out - do you really think that's going to bring any semblance of a democratic government to Iraq? depending on which faction comes out on top, we'll just be looking at more bloodbaths.

you can go on for a long time about Bush said this, Bush said that, we were buddies with Saddam, etc etc. That's history. If you want to make life better for the Iraqi people, which should it be? An democratically elected government, however imperfect, or some warlord that makes it to the top?

sceptic


To the twatish one

30.05.2005 20:23

‘Israel who are the worst because some jew hater twats in the UN say so’ – No you numb skull betar boy – the fact that you write any resolutions against Israel are against Jewish people means that you are a complete and utter twat

twat finder


I'll take curtain C........Neither

30.05.2005 21:08

If the ressistance wins and lets not forget the ressistance comprises of many people not just extremists. THen there is a chance that a brutal corupt regime will take power (lets pretend for a moment the current occupiers are not brtal (abu ghraib, killing of innocents... fallujah could go on). Anyway say a brutal regime takes power. The Iraqi people will easily be able to prevail under such a regime coz that regime wont have 1 millionth of the military strength to control the people like the Americans do. Ressistance in Iraq takes place every second. Peacefully and violently. I am not against violent ressistance as long as the targets are accurately hit and I gotta say they have become a hell of a lot more accurate than the Americans are. Im not naive and know that a fair ammount of the resistance comprises of fanatics which may be have equaly as dangerous a mind as bush and blair have. But they can never have the strength to fulfil their plans. Its a lot easier for teh Americans etc to keep control in Iraq and supress the mass protest taking place every day calling for them to leave because they ve got the technology, the modern equipment, the tanks the choppers, the planes, military law has prevailed in Iraq. What weapon will the fanatics have if they win? Sure they can beat the American army coz America can only afford to lose so many troops in the region as in Vietnam. And so this is the myth of Iraq being left to chaos should the troops leave. In that case you also agree Iraq should have never been invaded as it is more chaotic now than it was under Saddam as weve already seen the likelyhood of an Iraqi civilian being killed now is much larger. If the troops leave, the insurgency will stop. 3/4 of the people there will no longer feel they have to give their lives as they are no longer occupied. And perhaps a truly independent body can be able to monitor the country during a REAL election where any1 is able to take part in it and EVERY idea is expressed, and the elected Government has the right to do a lot more than just ot change the flag and the national anthem.

Dont settle for anything less


you really think

30.05.2005 23:06

you'll get elections if one of the resistance groups comes out on top?

I think the word is 'naive'.

sceptic


...

31.05.2005 12:39

You can't impose democracy on a people through violence, and I think this has been demonstrated by the disaster in Iraq.

Of course, don't we all want to see the Iraqi people have a free and democratically elected regime? Yes, of course. The only way for that to happen is to stop this violent interference in the country. As long as people can see the 'democracy' being set up by the US is compromised by, for example, the laws that have privatised all of Iraq's assets and put them in foreign hands, people are going to see it is a US front, and will resist against it.

Imagine if the parliament in the UK was protected and funded by, for example, Nazi germany. Imagine they allowed elections, while at the same time occupying the country, raiding and killing the people, torturing people in Dartmoor prison. Imagine, say, Exeter becomes a center of resistance, and the Nazis move in and comletely demolish the city, like Fallujah, leaving dead bodies to be eaten by dogs in the street. I would resist.

Remember, also, the US didn't even want elections at first. They were pressured by the Shia to hold them. Perhaps the best thing to happen out of this is that the Shia coalition won out over the US backed coalition. Because it means there is no way the US can invade Iran now, without the whole region falling out of their hands. The elections were engineered by the Shia, not by the US, and yet they US have still done their best to compromise it with this ridiculous law of needing a 2/3 majority to pass any major legislation.

The US is not the bringer of democracy to the world. It recently overthrew the democratically elected Aristide in Haiti, and tried to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez in Venezuela. It remains close allies with Uzbekistan, a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world, whose president even boils people alive.

'Bringing democracy' is the buzzword they use to try and sell brutal war to liberal-minded people, who are sadly confused about the realities on the ground. Who remain confused, even through the most bloody atrocities. Children are being killed by cluster bombs. That's OK, because we're bringing democracy. People are being tortured and killed in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan. That's OK, because we're bringing democracy. People have no water or electricity, and the country is essentially lawless. That's OK, because we're bringing democracy. The muslim world hates us so much, that now they are willing to kidnap us and cut of our heads, or fly aeroplanes into our buildings. That's OK, because we're bringing democracy.

Where is this democracy? It seems like a very naive, misplaced faith in some very dubious characters with very undemocratic credentials. A con-man will dress up in a very nice suit, with a big smile, and tell you the big pay-off is just around the corner. He'll keep leading you along, ripping you off for all you're worth, promising you your big win, your big pay-off, is soon. You'll keep believing him, because you want to believe. But in the end, he will run off with all that you had, and you will be left with nothing.

Use your eyes, and see what is actually happening.

Hermes