RE: [Marxism] The right to resist occupation

[Joaquín Bustelo <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wrote this originally for Solidarity's internal discussion list, to which
Sharon Smith's article from Counterpunch had been posted. Since I see now
that it was also posted here, I am forwarding it to this list. In the
process I've cleaned up a couple of typos and convoluted sentences in the
original. 

-----Original Message-----

I think we must clearly differentiate between the stance of revolutionaries
and conscious anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist forces in the U.S., on the
one side, and the kind of strategy, tactics and slogans that are appropriate
for the antiwar movement as a whole, which is a de facto united front of
disparate forces, on the other.

I am 110% for groups like Soli, Freedom Road, ISO, and everyone else like
that having a political stance of favoring the victory of the just struggle
being waged by the Iraqi resistance to drive out the imperialist occupation.
And I am against people in the U.S. setting themselves up in judgment of
particular tactics or attacks attributed by the imperialist press to the
resistance forces. 

The Sharon Smith article makes unwarranted concessions to imperialist
propaganda by adopting a critical tone towards "the tactic of targeting
civilians, which is used by parts of the resistance." The article is quite
right in saying that the massive, genocidal war being waged by the
Anglo-American imperialists far outweigh these sorts of attacks anyways. But
it is also true that the imperialists are responsible for ALL the civilians
being killed, including by the resistance. 

In particular, the U.S. military is using civilians in military functions of
logistics, supplies and communications in a combat zone. By doing so, they
commit a crime against humanity. The laws of war REQUIRE that those engaged
in military operations be clearly identifiable as such by uniforms of at
least something like an arm patch. That is for the protection of the general
civilian non-combatant population. By placing civilians in these functions,
the U.S. has made them legitimate targets for military attack, and moreover,
they have done so without providing them the training and equipment that
could give them the best chance to survive such an attack. Or if they have
been provided such training and equipment, then these people are, whatever
their job classification, mercenaries and/or spies. 

Civilians in Iraq that perform functions in the imperialist war machine or
occupation, including general administration, are legitimate military
targets; people doing these functions who pass themselves off as "civilians"
by their dress, etc., fall outside the protections of the Geneva conventions
and the laws of war.

Further, those collaborating with the U.S. occupation in whatever capacity
can serve as its eyes and ears among the Iraqi population singling out
resistance fighters and collaborators for repression. Given the conditions
under which this war is being waged, no legitimate criticism can be made of
the resistance for not allowing this to happen.

There are, in addition, undoubtedly countless instances of completely
innocent, unconnected civilians who have died as a result of attacks by the
resistance, including not just attacks that went wrong unexpectedly, but
were ill-considered or failed to give due weight to the responsibility of
combatants to do everything possible to protect civilians. The blame for
these deaths ALSO falls squarely on the shoulders of the imperialists, who
have left the best sons and daughters of the Iraqi nation no option but to
wage a guerrilla campaign against foreign occupiers in their midst.
Many young Iraqis are having to learn lessons about how to wage the war
while protecting their people by making mistakes.

*  *  *

All that said, it is not the role or place of a U.S. antiwar movement to
adopt positions on supporting the resistance and so on. The role of a
movement in the U.S. is to place demands on the U.S. government. The demands
of this movement must be underpinned by, and serve to educate the general
population on, the principle of the right of nations to self-determination,
the right of nations to control their own affairs as they see fit without
outside interference. In this case, it can be expressed by adopting as the
central slogan, Out Now.

This is a powerful and objectively anti-imperialist position. Why
anti-imperialist? Because the epoch of imperialism in which we live consists
of precisely a handful of rich robber nations lording it over the rest of
the world. The United States has nor right to dictate --or even discuss!--
what political arrangements people in Iraq will make for handling their
common affairs. There are 100 years of history, and in reality quite a bit
more, that show that whatever claims the U.S. may be making about "freedom"
and "humanitarian intervention" are really just lies to cover up imperialist
domination and exploitation. 

By its very nature, an antiwar movement is one which brings together
disparate forces around a common objective: ending the U.S. war in Iraq.
Insisting that to be part of the movement, you have to identify with victory
to the resistance forces unnecessarily narrows the movement. The BEST WAY to
aid the resistance is to build the most socially powerful movement in this
country that can limit the imperialists options, especially at this stage
the option of a massive escalation that would put another 50-100 thousand
troops on the ground in Iraq. 

The first step in that escalation has ALREADY taken place, with the sending
of what seem to be about two additional brigades to Iraq in time for the
elections.

Building the most socially powerful antiwar movement that is possible may
well require very different tactics and approaches than in the 1960's and
early 1970's. It may well be that this will be a multi-issue or multi-slogan
movement rather than a "single-issue" one. It may well be that the forms of
the coalitions are different. But I don't believe it can be a "victory to
the resistance" movement or anything like that and be more than a small and
isolated narrow layer of conscious leftists, pretty much talking to
themselves.

Moreover, for the broad mass of people, projecting slogans like "support the
resistance" or anything like that can miseducate them in pretty fundamental
ways. If viewed as a demand on the U.S. government, that is not a demand we
should support, because we know the fundamental character of this government
is that it is imperialist. It makes it sound that the problem is that the
U.S. government is backing the wrong side, that U.S. interference and
intervention would be OK if only better people were deciding where and how
to invade and intervene. 

We don't want to educate people in that spirit, but rather in a spirit that
says the U.S. imperialists have no right to invade, no right to occupy, no
right to meddle in the affairs of third world nations. And it IS third world
nations, peoples of color, that are the inevitable target. 

People who come in the process of the struggle against this war to a
generalized anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist consciousness will
sometimes tend to assume that "everyone" should have the level of
consciousness that they have now achieved, forgetting how it is that they
got here. They went from engaging around the specific issue of this war or
some other instance of imperialist aggression to a more generalized
understanding as they took part in the movement and saw the connections and
parallels between one situation and another.

It is important that this layer be educated in an intransigent spirit of
solidarity with all those struggling against imperialism, and in this the
propaganda and education of socialist organizations plays an essential role.
That is why it is unfortunate for an article like this to give even an inch
to the imperialist slanders about the resistance being to blame for civilian
deaths.

But in terms of agitation, of a mass line aimed at the general population,
and not more advanced materials aimed at a small, more conscious layer of
activists, the line of the article by this comrade as applied to today's
antiwar movement is ultraleft.

Joaquín
 

-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Louis Proyect
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 11:07 AM
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Marxism] The right to resist occupation

Counterpunch, January 21, 2005
The Right to Resist Occupation
The Anti-War Movement and the Iraqi Resistance

By SHARON SMITH



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