Saddam regime

[Philip Ferguson <plf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One of the things the imperialist invasion has pointed up is the lack of
any real mass social base on the part of the Saddam regime.  This is
hardly surprising for the Baathists came to power in a
*counter-revolutionary coup* which overthrew a more radical nationalist
(and rather more democratic) regime in the late 1950s.

Defence of Iraq against imperialism in no means requires any kind of
prettifying of the regime.  Everything about the regime, including the
regime's record, made it *easier* for the imperialists, ensuring that
the Iraqi masses were not going to defend it.

We should be on the side of the Iraqi masses against the imperialists.
These are the decisive forces and this is where the battle line is drawn.

Obviously, our public propaganda should concentrate on attacking the
imperialists.  While the US was trying to wipe out the Saddam regime, we
needn't say much at all about the regime in our
anti-war/anti-imperialist organising.  It was more important to focus on
the real reasons the imperialists were invading Iraq.

Certainly in Anti-Capitalist Alliance publications and leaflets here in
NZ, we never got into big denunciations of the Iraqi regime while the
imperialists were making war on it.

But we should still be clear in our own minds, and certainly on lists
like this, that Saddam was not a Fidel or a Mao or a Ho Chi Minh, he
wasn't even a Milosevic.  He was a *counter-revolutionary* who did
imperialism's bidding all his life and, when he found he was surplus to
requirements, he didn't turn into a belated anti-imperialist.  Rather,
he took to ground like a frightened rat and ensured the disorganisation
of the resistance to the invasion.  In the end, he wasn't even a Noriega
or a Galtieri!

Now he's gone, the Iraqi people can build a real resistance.  Not only
will this be more effective than Saddam in challenging imperialist
domination, it will also make it more possible for workers around the
world to identify with.

Philip Ferguson