Re: US policy and Iraq (and social base of the Iraqi regime)

[John Paramo <albatrosrojo2000@xxxxxxxxx>]

Philip wrote:

It *discredits* the left when people on the left think
that in order to oppose something they have to come up
with the most nightmarish scenario possible.

While it is certainly important to publicise US
atrocities in Iraq, it is also important to understand
the nature of the intervention and to understand *why*
the US is *not* carrying out indiscriminate bombings
and mass murder a la Vietnam, or even the last Gulf
War actually.

Answer:

Neither did the US carried out conscious massacres in
Vietnam in the first period of intervention.  When
their "winning the minds and hearts" of the "enemy"
failed, commanders became paranoid by ambushes by
civilians and bobby traps AND the leadership at
Washington started to realized the unwinnable nature
of the war, a shift to more conscious massacring
strategy was done.

But you should not understimate what the US/British
imperialists did or are doing now in Iraq.  According
to some estimates they killed - or murdered is more
the word since with 4 generations advantage war is no
longer war - over 30,000 Iraqi soldiers.

While the US/British axis maybe murdered 3-5,000
civilians in bombings, shootings and tank attacks and
just trigger happy incidents, there is an estimated
70,000 people who got injured, wounded, half of them
seriously.

Quoting the SWP rag:

> Their goal with this strategy is to minimize
opposition to the imposition of a U.S. protectorate
that will reinforce Washington?s ability to dominate
the region and plunder its resources. In the short
term, this approach has been successful.

Answer:

This is relatively true, but one-sided, and thus is
partially false. It is true, every imperialis would
like to have a bloodless invasion followed by the
acceptance of those being colonized. But there was
another critical and fundamental factor" the global,
unparallel antiwar movement.  They should partially
take the credit for the "shock and awe" redux.

Again, quoting the SWP's newspaper:

> So far the imperialist forces have not destroyed the
capital?s infrastructure, which would lead to a rapid
health crisis from lack of electricity and running
water. This is both because Washington plans to
> use existing facilities to help take control of the
country, and because
> it didn?t need to destroy much of Baghdad in order
to take it.

Answer: First of all, the US bombed the electric grid,
not as they said for a week that the Iraqi government
did it. They took the military decision to destroy,
both US and British forces, the electric and water
pipes in Basra, Al-Basariyah and other hard spots
where they encountered resistance, In fact they had
faile to restablish these systems even after they took
over these towns.

Second, they allowed the looters and unleashed lumpen
crowds to do the job for them.  Baghdad is burning
today with at least 20 essential administrative
buildings in flames, museaums sacked, railroads
stations burned to ashes and Hospitals and clinics
destroyed.

Your comments:

When people on the left, whether it's Galloway or
anyone else, conjure
up images of imperialist genocide in Iraq, they are
simply losing the
plot.  Crying wolf also discredits the left and means
when we do point
to a real case of imperialist mass murder, the public
will be less
likely to believe us.

Answer: true, this does not amount to genocide just as
yet.  But the US/British committeed 90 reported and
verified cases of massacres against civilians in 22
days of battle.  Some kind of record I would say since
these represent a higher rate than the firs thrre
months in Yougoeslavia and the first year or two in
Vietnam (rate per day).

In some other place you mentioned that the Iraqi
government and the baathist did not have a significant
social base.

I would suggest you revise that characterization. 
While hated by possible one third  of the population,
they probaly counted on a 40-50% support.

In fact, the US is now recognizing that as they go
about trying to make deals with generals, public
functionaries and legions of Baathist loyalists in
order to put some kind of administration together to
make the country work.  They are already striking
deals with high ups in both the party and the army to
do this.

Second element: you can't have tens of thousands of
paramilitaries, armed civilians and partisans fighting
the powerful US forces and even committing suicide
bombings (remember, the majority of those attempting
to use these methods were Baathists or members of the
Armed Forces).

The Iraqi government ran one of the best food programs
and social services in the semi-colonial world (in
between disastrous wars and gassing of Kurds)and use
those programs very efficiently to guarantee the local
loyalties and so on. This, particularly among peasants
and the poor.

The urban petitebourgeoisie, the professionals, the
merchants and the "aristocracy" of the working class
supported the regime and a big chunk of them continue
to do so.  So do a significant layer of the Iraqi
bourgeoisie that greatly benefited under Saddam.

We can argue whether this social base represented
40-50% or 30-35%, but it is a significant social base
in my book. 

While I agree with you people should not lightly use
terms such as genocide, etc , we also need to
recognize the other side of reality.  Thje regime was
extremely unpopular in many layers of society, but
popular on others.

Of course, this should not prevent any and all attacks
against the policies of the regime about democracy,
their anti-communist purges, the massacre of Kurds,
etc

JP



 



------------
¡Navegá y ayudá a un chico!
Por cada usuario que se conecte a Internet 
con Yahoo! Conexión en abril, Yahoo! Argentina 
donará un plato de comida para un niño, a través 
de la asociación "Por los chicos".
http://ar.online.yahoo.com