Replying to Nick was Re: [Marxism] Re: Will the USA invade Iraq

[<g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nick

Again good to read your reply.  I am going to chop up your 
post and reply to bits of it.  I hate that when it is done to 
myself but sometimes it is unavoidable.

Nick wrote:

Unless the current leader of Iran is some sort of deep cover 
guy, it would appear the reason he got elected is that his 
ideology and way of doing things is closer to Sadr than 
Sistani.

Gary Wrote:

The latest piece from Juan Cole has it that apparently al-
Sadr has instructed his followers to vote for the 
constitution. If that is true and of course we have to be 
sceptical then the differences between al-Sadr and the 
Iranian leadership bloc would appear to have narrowed.
My reading of the Shia situation is that the majority of the 
Shia want the Occupation to be over.  The Shia leadership 
wants it to continue until the possibility of a Baath 
restoration is totally impossible. 

For me the Shia leaders are trying for the solution that the 
Northern Alliance pulled off in Afghanistan.  There with the 
tactical support of America they were able to destroy the 
Taliban state and install themselves in power.

But even if Iraq may or may not be another Vietnam, it 
certainly is not another Afghanistan. The initial success in 
Afghanistan of the USA-Northern Alliance push led to an 
imperialist dreaming that with a brief putsch they could 
install any regime they wished. Clearly,though, they have 
failed to do that in Iraq.

Moreover the current Shia leadership is *not* the leadership 
of choice.  Rumsfeld did say early on there would be no 
government led by mullahs.  But the strength of the 
resistance has meant that the US has had to compromise with 
the Shia and indirectly with Iran.

The only possible source of trouble for that deal was al-
Sadr - hence the attempts to kill him which pushed him into 
revolt.

al-Sadr suffered a military defeat and he did retreat on the 
military and political front. How far remains to be seen.

Nick wrote:

The one [British offensive] in the South is an attempt by the 
British to turn up the heat on the Sadrist forces.

Gary wrote: I tend to agree with this, but simply do not know 
enough to say whether Juan Cole's analysis that Sadrist 
forces outside the control of al-Sadr are the real target is 
accurate or not. It may be possible that another group of 
Shiites are emerging who really want to oppose the Occupation 
and as such are coming into conflict with all factions of the 
Shia leadership including al-Sadr. In any case I suspect 
strongly that the British have gotten prior approval from the 
Sistani camp for the current offensives. Just as the 
Americans got permission to launch their anti al-Sadr drives.



Nick Wrote:

Another significant event that I saw on CNN-I was footage of 
the marines firing a 120 mm tank round into a house and 
killing and wounding only non-combatants, including little 
children. The vacuous reporter blathered on about how vital 
it was to have reporting going so we could see the reality of 
the war, but it seems pretty obvious the only reason the 
footage got out past the censors was to send a message to the 
Resistance: continue fighting and this is what we do to
your families. The US militaryâ s propaganda machine cares 
not one whit that what was shown on the video was a clear war 
crime.

Gary wrote:

I saw this too and of course I agree totally with your 
outrage.  Truly as you say this was planned "encourager les 
autres" and yes, it was a war crime.

Also you are surely correct when you say that an objective of 
these offensives is to disrupt oppostion to the constitution. 
But all that is just to compound the stupidity  of American 
policy in Iraq.  

The destruction of bridges, the bombing of houses, arbitrary 
arrests etc are all driving the Sunnis more and more towards 
the camp of the Resistance. Armed revolt is more and more 
becoming an absolute necessity for the Sunnis.

The true story of the last three years reveals that every 
time the Americans announce a land mark has been passed and 
that success is just around the corner, history quickly over 
takes them. The killing of Saddam's sons, Saddam's arrest, 
the setting up of the Allawi govt, the elections, the 
constitution - all were hailed as the crucial breakthrough.  
However it would appear that the same vital breakthrough 
still remains around the next corner.

So I remain optimistic about the current conjuncture.  The 
militarists are bogged down in Iraq, and that is something 
very few of us expected.

regards

Gary
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism