[Marxism] Re: response to Fred (by Steve Gabosch)

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve Gabosch writes:
Fred felt this article without
substantiation attributed recent bombings in Iraq (Dec 19 in Najaf and
Karbala) to Baathists.  However, a careful reading of that Militant
article
reveals that this Militant article goes no further than attributing
these
bombings to "Baathists *and their allies*" (my emphasis) and points out
that no one had yet taken responsibility for them.  The Militant holds
the
position that remnants of the Baathist Suddam Hussein regime are the
leading forces within the current Iraqi resistance, and Islamists also
play
an important role.

The headline in the Militant firmly declared in bold type on page 1:
Killings of civilians in Iraqi cities
show desperation of Baathist forces.

As Steve notes, the body of the article offered nothing to confirm this
assertion, which clearly pins the bombings on desperate Baathists. The
article, instead of following the headline, hedges its bets.

Of course, this is a common practice in the bourgeois media. How often
have we had the experience of reading a headline in the New York Times
or Washington Post proclaiming some new crime of the hated "enemy," only
to discover four, five, or ten paragraphs later that the story is not as
the headline proclaimed.

The bold headline is to orient the masses, who sometimes read little
more than headlines and the first couple paragraphs of articles or only
read the headlines on the news stand. The headline gives the LINE, and
the nuances, you see, are for the cadres, and also to  cover ass.

Steve insists that the SWP "line" is that the resistance is Baathis and
Islamist.  He submitted an articled describing reported claims by Saddam
that the whole resistance was organized before his regime fell. I
submitted an article along the same lines, presenting the
Baathist-Islamist origin of the resistance in the last stages of
Saddam's regimes.

Steve assumes that if the "factual question" is resolved, the "line"
question is settled since the difference is over the facts.  Wrong.

The question is over support to the struggle of the Iraq against the US
occupation should be supported.  I have no doubt whatever that the
strongest forces in the resistance are Baathist and Islamists.  Among
the Shia, of course, Baathists are not highly visible (unless you count
Allawi's clique).
I tend to be skeptical of the Militant's claims, which are ideologically
governed, and of the boasts of Saddam and the estimates of Ritter.  But
of the prominence of Baathists and Islamists in the resistance, there is
no doubt whatever.

I believe that if Saddam's army had been able to repel the invasion,
that would have been progressive.  The difference is not over whether it
was a revolutionary army or even over whether there was any likelihood
that it could stymie the invaders.  The issue was the political stance.

In this case, the issue is not whether the occupation is being resisted
by Fidels and Lenins.  Nor is the debate about whether the resistance
will be able to win.  Again the question is the basic class one: which
side are you on, as my friend Walter Lippmann keeps asking when this
subject comes up.

The reason I make some criticisms of the course of the resistance is
exactly from that standpoint, which is actually largely independent of
the composition of the resistance.  I agree with those who supported the
feudal emperor Haile Selassie against the Italian imperialist invasion
in the 30s. I don't think the fact that the Italians came waving the
banner of fascist modernization while the US imperialists proclaim the
cause of democratic modernization changes that one iota.

But I think we in the United States, as part of the antiwar movement,
are not helped by illusions about the ease or imminence of victory
(although if it turns out to be imminent, I will be glad to have misread
the tea leaves.  I also am concerned that misconceptions about how to
struggle can grow among fighters here if we bend over too far backwards
to defend or explain away actions that have never contributed much to
progressive outcomes, and are very unlikely to be doing so now.

Also as an interntionalist, I assume and wish well to any fighters who
are trying to sort out some of the problems that the fight against the
occupation confronts.  If anything I write, by happenstance, ends up
giving them encouragement, that's a great fringe benefit as far as I'm
concerned.

But I am on the side of resistance to the occupation.  Period.  That's
the debate, not the composition of the resistance, not the certainty or
uncertainty of its success or defeat.

I'm more and more convinced that my own judgements about Iraq are
clearer and more "objective" (a useful word if proportions are guarded)
if I leave the SWP completely out of the matter.

The people best qualified to talk about the SWP and its orientation
today are the growing number (including organized supporters) who have
been expelled from the SWP international "movement" in the past year for
opposing what I think is a reactionary-sectarian stance on Iraq.  If
they choose not to do so directly, I think I should take that as good
advice by example.
Fred Feldman


Scott Ritter


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