Random thoughts was Re: [Marxism] NY Times report seems to indicate close ties between Pakistan intelligence and Taliban

[<g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

1. Fred remarks on his fascination with Pakistan's ability to fight on both 
sides of the war on terror.

True it is impressive in a way but Pakistan's turn will come.  I have little 
doubt about that.  If Bush "succeeds" in Iraq and Iran then the ruling class in 
Pakistan will have the blow torch put to their butts (or something).

I put "succeeds" in scare quotes because I am beginning to believe that Bush's 
criterion for success is that he be left standing even if there should be 
chaos, slaughter or ruin all around him. I wonder if that comes from believing 
in the Rapture?

2.  On sons and fathers & individuals and collectives and Nietzsche and Hegel

I think it was somewhere on Juan Cole's blog that I read a remark about how 
Kristol, Bush and Kagan were all the minor sons of greater fathers and that 
that accounted for their determinaiton to succeed in Iraq. Of course that could 
be a contributing factor but I am still enough of a materialist to accord the 
Oedipus complex only a minor role in any proper understanding of the role of 
the individual in history.  

Moreover one could also add al-Sadr to the list of undistinguished sons. Part 
of me was repulsed/fascinated by the revelation by Cole that he thought that 
Saddam was referring to al-Sadr  when on the gibbet Saddam spoke of "manliness" 
in response to the guards taunting him with chants of "Moqtada".  Seemingly the 
refereence was to al-Sadr's wife who left him citing his gayness as the factor 
in the divorce.

Now I am well (painfully?) aware that it is difficult to get a good reference 
from an ex-wife and besides the thought that al-Sadr might be gay is horrifying 
to a gay person.  Trust me.
So let's hope there is nothing in the rumour.

I have been struck though by the hatred that is being directed at al-Sadr, the 
individual, from all sides - especially from the Sunnis.  Tony Sayegh on the 
<palestinianpundit.blogspot.com> site had this to say:

"Muqtada said today that he thought he and his "army" are the target of the 
U.S. escalation plan (Dah!). Today, his information official (Abdul-Hadi 
al-Darraji) was arrested by U.S. occupation troops. However, the "great 
warrior" told his followers not to fight the occupation. Why? Because it is the 
month of Moharram, and "it is forbidden for Muslims to kill during this month!" 
Of course, it is only forbidden to kill U.S. occupation soldiers, but killing 
fellow Iraqis is O.K., according to Sayyed Muqtada."

Later Sayegh posted a photo with this comment:

"This is Muqtada Sadr's spokesman, Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, who was arrested 
today by U.S. occupation forces. The news is that he is being interrogated by 
his captors. I wonder if electric drills, a specialty of Muqtada's Mahdi 
"army," might just speed up the interrogation. Just a thought."

Such displays of inter-Arab disunity are to be deplored IMHO.  Really they mark 
the site of the triumph of "Divde and conquer" strategy. A more correct 
approach to the al-Sadr phenomenon would be to address his link with his base - 
the Shia poor and to see him as an ambivalent and contradictory figure who 
nevertheless leads a movement whose liberation and cry for justice we would 
support.

Years ago now (in 1995 would you believe - eheu, fugaces labuntur anni!)on the 
old Marxism list there was a spat about Louis Farrakhan and the Million Man 
march. There were criticisms of the reactionary nature of Farrakhan's politics. 
 Then Lou posted a piece by Trotsky or Lenin on Fr Gapon which saw his role not 
in personal terms but rather as an outcome of historical forces. Lou argued 
that we must see farrakhan in the same way.

This is of course a typically Hegelian way to see an individual, and as such it 
is unfashionable in these neo-Nietzschean days when the individual is usually 
thought of in terms of the "Many" or difference and her link to the One or the 
collective is absolutely ignored.

Nevertheless even in these postmodern times, there is occasionally something of 
a realisation that al-Sadr represents a social force and as such cannot be 
destroyed easily.  Having said that I was struck how the execution of Saddam 
turned him from being a totally isolated and irrelevant has-been into the 
representative, however flawed, of the collective dream of a people longing for 
emancipation. 

In philosophical terms it was as if all the dross of contemporary 
neo-Nietzschean thought fell away and the thought of that old "dead dog" Hegel 
came into its own.  


The Palestinain journalist Ramzy Baroud put the meaning of Saddam's death very 
well:

"Regardless of what Arabs and Muslims around the world felt of Saddamâs 
history and leadership, his capture, his trial and undignified execution were a 
collective humiliation for us all, a humiliation that will not be forgotten for 
perhaps many years. And sadly, this international public spectacle has the 
potential to reap devastating ramifications. It seems that fear and uncertainty 
are, sadly, among the people of the US and the Middle East, a common sorrow." 
(cited at <palestinianpundit.blogspot.com>.

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