[Marxism] Tariq Ali on Iraqi Resistance - ZNet March 17, 2005

[Ralph Johansen <michele@xxxxxxxx>]

ZNet | Iraq

Tariq Ali on Iraqi Resistance

Tariq Ali interviewed by Socialist Worker; March 17, 2005

Two years after the invasion of Iraq, writer and activist Tariq Ali 
spoke to Socialist Worker about US strategy in the Middle East and the 
growth of the Iraqi resistance to the occupation

Socialist Worker: The Iraqi resistance is demonised by Bush and Blair as 
terrorists, supporters of Saddam Hussein, Islamic fundamentalists and so 
on. Tell us what you think of the resistance.

Tariq Ali: Every resistance movement against imperialism has been 
categorised as terrorist – the Mau Mau in Kenya were demonised and 
brutally tortured by the British; the Algerian FLN by the French; the 
Vietnamese by the French and the Americans.

Today Israel’s Ariel Sharon refers to Palestinians as terrorists, 
Russia’s Vladimir Putin crushes the Chechens in the name of fighting 
terror and Tony Blair is assaulting traditional civil liberties in this 
country in the name of fighting terror. It’s hardly surprising that the 
Iraqi resistance is characterised in the same fashion.

Obviously the means used to drive out imperial occupiers are determined 
by the nature of the occupation. The brutality of the US troops and 
systematic torture they have used has been well documented. So how can 
the resistance be beautiful?

During the Algerian war a leader of the national liberation front, the 
FLN, was asked about using terror against French civilians in cafe 
bombings in Algiers. He replied, “If we had an air force I promise you 
we would only target French barracks, but till then…”

SW: How does the struggle between imperialism and the resistance in Iraq 
compare with the struggles against French colonial rule in Algeria or 
against the US in Vietnam? Have the techniques of empire changed? Is the 
nature of the resistance different?

TA: The techniques of empire have not changed at all. The tally in 
Vietnam was two million Vietnamese dead and 50,000 US soldiers. The 
tally in Iraq today is over 100,000 Iraqis dead and 1,500 US soldiers. 
The proportions don’t change.

What has changed is the world in which we live. With the collapse of the 
traditional left there is a big vacuum. In Vietnam and Algeria the 
movement was led by people who were either communists (Vietnam) or 
secular nationalists (Algeria).

In Iraq today the heirs of the Iraqi Communists - whose leaders were 
hanged by the British empire - are crude collaborators on every level.

The armed resistance is led by religious groups, ex-Baathists and in 
certain areas by Iraqi nationalists. The political failure to create a 
national liberation front is the Achilles heel of the resistance.

Zarqawi’s al-Qaida group only entered the country after the US 
occupation. It is a tiny minority whose tactics are denounced by most 
Iraqis opposed to the occupation.

There is also the political resistance of Moqtada al-Sadr and his 
faction, which is based in the Shia slums of Baghdad and the poor 
sectors of Basra and other cities in the south of Iraq. He will demand 
the withdrawal of all foreign troops and say no to permanent US bases in 
the country.

If the leading figures in the United Iraqi Alliance, Abdul Aziz 
al-Hakim, and Shia cleric Ali Sistani - not to mention the fraudster 
Ahmed Chalabi - cave in, the resistance will spread to the south of Iraq.

In my opinion, to demand and accept an election under the protection of 
an occupying imperial army could only lead to further collaboration. 
Sistani models himself on Gandhi, but India had a very different history 
to Iraq and Gandhi called on the British to quit India at the height of 
the Second World War.

The US administration was split over who should lead Iraq. The first 
option was Iyad Allawi, the second option is Sistani/al-Hakim/Chalabi. 
But the house of cards could collapse quickly if a Sistani regime cannot 
deliver a rapid withdrawal.

SW: Since 2003, we have seen the two assaults on Fallujah, the rebellion 
in Najaf, the elections and the installation of another interim 
government. How has the Iraqi resistance developed and changed since 2003?

TA: Fallujah is the Guernica of the Arab world. A city was destroyed, 
its people killed, tortured, dislocated, its children orphaned. 
Tragically, in contrast to the first assault on the city, Sistani 
remained silent in November.

In other words the bloc he heads acquiesced in the destruction of 
Fallujah in return for power sharing. This event marks the first serious 
breach in the unity of Iraq.

The elections were initially regarded by Washington as a concession, 
though US journalist Thomas Friedman argued strongly for them in the New 
York Times on the grounds that it was best that Sistani crushed the 
insurgency rather than the Americans. Just like it’s best if Abu Mazen 
crushes the Palestinian resistance rather than Sharon.

In an occupied country imperialism always divides and rules - India, 
Africa, Vietnam, Korea, Cyprus, Ireland and the Arab east are examples 
from the past. The American empire will want a client regime in place 
and it will use each group against the other.

Allawi against Sistani; armed resistance groups against al-Sadr. That is 
why some elementary unity on a political level is vital. If Sistani, as 
the voice of the majority community, had denounced the destruction of 
Fallujah, it would have created the basis for some form of unity. So the 
resistance, in my opinion, has progressed little over the last two 
years. This is a tragedy for Iraq.

SW: There are several elements to what the US is doing in Iraq - 
military, political and economic. To what extent is the resistance 
countering in these three areas?

TA: Militarily the resistance has made the country ungovernable, 
including Baghdad, a city of several million people. Economically the 
targeting of foreign companies and the pipelines has been effective. Oil 
firm Halliburton is welcomed in Basra, but not Baghdad.

This is the first serious neo-liberal occupation and the third largest 
presence - after US and British troops - is the privatised armies run by 
firms.

A few months ago a South African mercenary was shot dead. It later 
emerged that he had been one of the torturers of Steve Biko. I was in 
South Africa at the time and many people rejoiced.

SW: Can the resistance win - and what would this mean?

TA: The withdrawal of all foreign troops, no military bases and Iraqi 
control of Iraqi oil would constitute a victory. But will the US allow 
this to happen?

Henry Kissinger has called for the Balkanisation of Iraq. The only 
grouping ready for this are the Kurds, provided they get the oil wells. 
Neither Turkey - for its own vile reasons - nor the rest of Iraq will 
accept this willingly.

So it’s a mess, but the lack of an overall political project on the part 
of the military and political resistance is a very serious weakness.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

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