Re: [Marxism] UFPJ, ANSWER, IAC round-table on perspectives for the antiwar m...

[Jscotlive@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 06/01/2006 02:31:36 GMT Standard Time,
steffie.brooks@xxxxxxxxx writes:

But I'm  left with one big question: why doesn't any one of the three
antiwar  leaders think immediate withdrawal of the troops can be
accomplished? What  do folks here think?



Reply:

Antiwar leaders, or anybody else, are not in a position to make that  happen,
that's why.

For any antiwar leader to commit to such a hypothetical would be to set him
or herself up to be discredited. This could impact negatively on the movement
they represent and demoralise activists. That the occupation is in serious
difficulty, that it is untenable, and that the imperialists know it is, is now
I  think irrefutable. But they will try to hang on as long as possible in
order to  be able to paint their eventual withdrawal as mission accomplished.

The antiwar movement has a crucial role to play, and I agree that it should
now move to an anti-imperialist outlook encompassing US aggression and
military  presence on a global scale. However, the single MOST important factor 
will
always be the indigenous resistance. The antiwar/anti-imperialist movement
should always demand immediate withdrawal, that is a given, and more than that
it should now be calling for the architects of this bloody war and occupation
to  face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

We are in no position to provide a timescale as to when they will leave
Iraq. All we can do is continue to mobilise and put as much pressure as we can  
on
our governments - i.e. US and UK - that they do.

J
________________________________________________
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