RE:[Marxism] Saddam and Baathists vs radical Iraqi nationalism

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From:                   "M. Junaid Alam" <junaidalam@xxxxxxxxxx>

> In my opinion your analogies and comparisons are misguided and
> erroneous, that is, when they are not plain facetious.>>>>

 For the third time, explain how?

If you can't, just say so!


>
> Saddam is a megalomaniac, a master in the art of survival - of himself.
> Of his country or the Arab nation he never cared one bit. The evidence?
> His historical record in aiding imperialism and crushing progressive
> forces in the region.
>
> Also you confuse the issue of mid-level Baathist, whom I openly pointed
> out are a part of the resistance, with Hussein and his elite clique.>>>>

 any evidence of this "split"?

<<<<I
> am saying the latter did not direct materially or tactically the former,
> because the press reports show there are various local cells, loosely
> based and organized, with no real central command, composed of a mix of
> forces. >>>>

  evidence?


Saddam alive, dead, captured, or dreaming - whatever - does not
> impact the resistance, because he is not a part of it.>>>>

 evidence?



>
> Furthermore I am not "concentrating" anywhere. This  business of
> Hussein's personal valor is not my main political concern. I was
> responding to a comment made by Abu Nasr that Hussein cannot be
> castigated as a former imperialist stooge because he stood up to America.>>>>
>
> I don't think you realize this because of your confusion ("where did I
> say that?") when I cited him in the last post as a reason for stating
> what I am stating.>>>>>

  No. He was at one point a imperialist stooge. His opposition
towards both U.S. invasions and his defiance throughout the
sanctions regime testifies to this reversal in stance.

>
> Therefore I am aware of the demonization that goes on, Milosevic
> included. Hence the separation between political realities/tactics, and
> honesty among ourselves about the balance sheet of forces and who to
> uphold as heroes or sources of inspiration.
>
> You yourself posted an article by Tariq Ali, which I didn't even read
> until my last post was finished, and I'd characterize my position as
> virtually identical to his on the capture of Hussein.>>>>
>
> Your Palestinian analogy is flawed to the core. Arafat is still in
> power, Hussein is not; Fatah is a diverse group, Ba'athist elite are
> cowards who made deals or fled;>>>>>

  The fact the Arafat is still in power is irrevelant to my point.
Nor does the fact that some members of the Bathist party made
"deals" with the U.S. prove your point, as there are members of
Fatah hiearchy who would happily jump off a bridge for the  U.S. if
asked. Also, if there is rift between the elite and "grassroutes" or
the Bathist, this would suggest it is diverse group as well.
But, again I have yet to see the *evidence*, apart from you claim,
 suggesting that any such
split/rift exists.


 Arafat is a popular, elected symbol of
> Palestinian self-determination.>>>>>

Arafat  didn't always garner the popular support that he receives
now. For example, his popularity was at an all time low during
while he "negotiating" with the Israelis and U.S on two state sell
out and the right of return. He became a symbol of the intifadah for
the very fact that he has (in recent times) refused to capitulate to
their demands -- hence, falling out of favour with them.

  Signing away Palestine's land claim would have instantaneously
reduced Arafat to villain status in Palestine, which is llikely why he
didn't follow through with his initial pledge to the U.S. and Israel.

If he was such the die hard revolutionary that you present him to be
(and that he was in his younger days) , he would have never
"cooperated" with the U.S. adminstration and the  Israeli
government in the first place. Let me restate that: he would never
even envisaged cooperating! He would have not allowed the CIA to
train the Palestinian police, nor accepted" advise by the CIA boss
on carrying out the previous land transfer agreement signed with
the Israelis.

He would have  also distanced himself from his closest
advisor/allies within Fatah, cosy witht the U.S. elite, for example,
Hannah Ashrawi for her membership within the Council of Foreign
Relations (which FYI counts Bush senior, Wesley Clark, and
Clinton as members).

I don't see it as coincidence that Arafat and  folks like  Saed
Erakat, Ashrawi, have so far been spared having their body riddled
with bullets  by the ZIonist death squads.

The fact is that every charge you lob at Saddam and the Bathist
"elite"  -- which I don't necessarily disagree with if applied in the
**proper context*** -- is applicable in some degree to Arafat and
some members of Fatah


>
> This is not an issue of "cheering" an invasion - that is patently
> absurd. You are jerry-rigging together pretending Hussein is brave with
> opposing the invasion of Iraq. >>>>>

 Whatever you want to call him -- criminal, U.S. lackey, very bad
man, etc.  The point is that he had the opportunity to save his *ss
by leaving the country. Many leaders in a similar situation have
happily accepted refuge abroad. And who can blaim them really if
it's choice between digging your own grave or spending the rest of
your life rotting some U.S. jail with Noriega as your sell mate.

 Hussein, however, refused to capitulate. His "defiance" brought
him the death of his sons and his own capture.
The other scenario is that he'd be sitting on a warm beech right
now in one of the gulf states, drinking taquillas with beautiful
women by his side. how selfish of him to refuse that, eh!

If nothing else, he should be credited for standing up to U.S.
imperialism.

DOQ


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism