Re: [Marxism] The low point

[Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JScotlive writes:

> The troops must be demoralised, both at home and abroad, in order to
> hasten
> the defeat of the occupation. This babying of troops engaged in
> imperialist
> occupation is a mistake, reflective of an unwillingness to mount a
> meaningful
> challenge against the ruling class.
===================================
Cindy Sheehan speaks very warmly about the human qualities of her late son
Casey in pleading with other military families (and the general public) to
join the antiwar movement - the point being that bringing the troops home
now is the best way for Americans to express their "support" for their sons
and daughters in Iraq. I don't know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me to
learn Sheehan has also had occasion to denounce US troops for commiting
atrocities. I don't think there would be any contradiction in doing so;
alluding to the human qualities of the troops - the best as well as the
worst of them - reinforces rather than detracts from what a brutalizing and
tragic waste of both Iraqi and American lives has resulted from the
occupation.

Sheehan's approach to the troops is representative of the antiwar movement
as a whole. But you see her "babying of troops engaged in imperialist
occupation" as "a mistake, reflective of an unwillingness to mount a
meaningful  challenge against the ruling class".

It would be interesting to see how your ideas translate in practice.
Precisely how did Sheehan somehow promote illusions in speaking
sympathetically about her son in order to dramatize what drew her to the
antiwar movement and deepened her political understanding? What should she
and her supporters have been saying about him instead?



________________________________________________
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