RE: AUT: Iraqi working class 'supports' the 'resistance'

[david.graeber@xxxxxxxx]

This discussion strikes me as odd. Even in the absence of
any obvious good guys, isn't the basic moral point
"you can't just go conquering other countries, and if
you try to change the rules and do conquer one, it is best if
you are forced to withdraw in humiliation because that's the
only way to ensure people are unlikely to try it again;
and anyway, you have no right to be there so get out."
Otherwise, we'd all have been sitting here in 1945 arguing
about whether the British and French should maintain their
colonies in Africa or Asia because otherwise we'd have
nasty successor regimes and things would go worse for
working people there, or that the US shouldn't pull out of
southeast Asia in the '70s because of Pol Pot? After all,
the "whether or not we should have gone in in the first
place we're there now and if we leave things will definitely
get worse because these people aren't ready to govern
themselves properly" argument is exactly the one used by
colonialists for generations.

Anyway, the occupiers will have to leave eventually.
And history does suggest the longer wars like this tend
to go on, the more extreme and intolerant the successor
state tends to be (look at Afghanistan!) so the sooner the
occupiers leave, the better.
   David



Quoting Hex * <shatterbreakseance@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

>
> >No, clearly Iraq is an extremely fucked up place and will likely
> remain so
> >even if the US pulls out. Obviously we don't know yet whether a
> >post-occupation Iraq will be worse (by what criteria?) than occupied
> Iraq.
> >Still you totally overlook that the current terrible situation is
> largely
> >due to the US invasion and occupation. As to the threat of civil war
> some
> >things I've read claim that US forces are actively trying to provoke
> civil
> >war. Certainly they'd rather Iraqis shooting each other than US
> troops.
>
> This right here: "Obviously we don't know yet whether a
> post-occupation Iraq
> will be worse (by what criteria?) than occupied Iraq." is where
> anti-imperialism hits the switch.  We simply can't know, right?  Well
> here's
> some baseless speculation then:
>
> The current Iraqi government: under which all bourgeois formal
> freedoms are
> preserved (speech, assembly, unions), under which minority factions
> of the
> ruling class are balanced (not ruling out sectarian warfare but
> reducing its
> likelihood), under which the southern marshes are being restored and
> the
> marsh arabs protected, under which the kurds are being protected (and
> were
> protected by no-fly zones during the sanctions years), under which
> due
> process is at least constitutionally guaranteed, under which
> autonomous
> courts are prohibited, secular law is preserved and talking about
> communism
> is legal.  Much of this is mediated by the current occupation and
> these
> mediations could be prolonged by a state of permanent crisis.  This
>
> government will also be held to the fire of neo-liberalism and forced
> to pay
> back the Iraqi debt, which will come out of the blood and sweat of
> the
> population.  In order for this government to win out, victory will
> have to
> be had in the civil war against the insurgents (which is largely
> Sunni at
> the moment) either through millitary means, which puts civilians
> directly in
> the line of fire, or negotiation, which if Fallujah's negotations are
> any
> indication, includes the restoration of the Ba'ath security
> apparatus.
>
> Now, assuming that the Iraqi resistance could claim victory somehow,
> how
> would its government look?  Would it have formal freedoms of speech,
>
> assembly, unions etc.?  Did Ba'athist Iraq?  No.  Would the sectarian
>
> factions be balanced?  Hardly, and intra-sect warfare would probably
>
> continue unabated unless either autonomous action were taken or the
> UN
> stepped in.  How would the southern marshes and their inhabitants
> fare?
> Unless diplomatic rapprochements with Saudi Arabia and Iran could be
>
> achieved they would probably be further burned and prepared for armed
>
> conflict, further proletarianizing the Marsh Arabs.  Would Sharia law
> be
> taken up by the juridical side of the state?  Absolutely.  Would
> communist
> parties be legal, would dissenters be free to dicuss different
> societies?
> That's laughable.  For this Iraq to take power, it would have to
> defeat or
> bring to a stand-off, socially or militarily, the coalition.  That
> means
> bloodshed and widespread destruction.  Would this Iraq be
> neo-liberal?
> Unlikely, it would probably have some sort of nationalist socialism
> in
> extreme crisis due to the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure (by the
>
> 'resistance' as well as the coalition).  It would be neo-liberal in
> one
> sense though.  The current Iraqi debt would be maintained, held as it
> is by
> France and Russia, and if those countries and the UN didn't intervene
>
> directly, they would negotiate with the new state for the
> recuperation of
> their debt, probably through international financial institutions.
> So, the
> Iraqi debt which has basically been cut in half by the negotiations
> of the
> US, would probably be demanded in full by the French and Russians,
> and the
> coalition would likely demand several pounds of flesh via the UN.
>
> It sounds like paradise.
>
> >So would you find it acceptable for US troops to indiscriminately
> bombard
> >the city you live in provided they gave you plenty of warning?
>
> If an islamic city state somehow took over the part of Japan that I
> live in,
> and I had no other way to get rid of it, I might.  These people
> did:
>
> http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10166880.htm
>
> >Fuck me those wily orientals dare to build TUNNELS and underground
> at that
> >to use against the heroic white men discharging their massive
> burden. Can
> >they possibly stoop any lower?
> >
> >And how many "slaughterhouses" trump an Abu Ghraib and Guantanamao
> bay?
>
> I'm not arguing equivalence.   Are you?  And your sad attempt to
> paint what
> I'm saying as racially motivated is baseless to say the least.
>
> >Who the fuck said it was? Is anyone here defending the Iraqi
> resistance? In
> >Fallujah a big armed racket is taking on a smaller armed racket or
> rackets
> >and both sides probably care little about those caught in the
> crossfire.
> >The lesser crimes of the resistance (at least in terms of numbers
> murdered)
> >don't justify the greater crimes of the US.
>
> Thiago is defending the Iraqi resistance, for one, and there are
> plenty of
> people who would who aren't on autopsy.
>
> >
> >Seriously why don't you join the US Marines or Army so you can help
> to
> >create "a soldier subjectivity in favour of the occupation"? The
> soldier
> >subjectivity I'd like to see is one that involves fragging,
> desertion,
> >mutiny and a general desire to get home alive not get involved in
> some
> >quixotic campaign to humanise the occupation.
>
> Another pretend quote.  If you had read what I wrote you'd see that
> this is
> an actual quote:
>
> "The idea requires the building of a social subjectivity in Iraq for
> western
> proletarians: American soldiers learning passable Arabic, interpreter
> and
> translator treason, social opposition in coalition countries to the
> Iraqi
> debt etc. We need American and British soldiers who work just as hard
>
> against strike-breaking, austerity and martial law as they have
> against the
> Ba?ath, soldiers that are becoming insurrectionary and therefore,
> becoming
> non-soldier. A soldier that makes decisions for her/himself, which
> may very
> well include simply dropping out, going AWOL, objection,
> conscientious or
> not. On the other hand there are many who do feel a zeal for what
> they
> perceive as the virtues of the Iraq war and occupation. For them of
> course
> the broken promises of the ruling class and where it comes up short
> should
> not translate into for example a vote for Kerry, it should manifest
> itself
> as action in the interest of the multitude. Refusing to carry out
> repression
> on strikes, refusing to risk its life needlessly, refusal to imprison
> and
> other ideas could break down real barriers."
>
> >Finally you seem to think that it is impossible for the working
> class to
> >defeat fascism whether classical or Islamic. Thus I guess the search
> for
> >subjects like the US and Israeli states to save us from the monsters
> we
> >can't take on ourselves. What a miserable fucking view of the
> possibility
> >of revolt but one to be excepted of someone firmly in the
> >conuter-revolutionary camp.
>
> What you're saying is then that the exploited of Iraq need to take on
> the
> Iraqi resistance themselves, a position that is JUST as coercive as
> "the US
> army needs to smoke them terrorists outta their holes".  I'm sure
> that
> Iraqis will be happy to hear that it's their responsibility to
> confront the
> fascists in their midst, why don't you write them some letters?
>
> Sphinx
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---