Re: Is this Stalingrad?

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

I wrote:
>>you talked about Stalingrad in Iraq a little more than a year ago and
that scenario didn't work out. Why was that prediction/understanding
wrong? The current "Stalingrad" seems more plausible, but your overuse
of the term pushes me to be skeptical and to wonder it maybe things
are better for the US and its junior partner than it seems.<<

Chris B. writes:
>Thanks for the reminder of the prophetic thread. It was on March 23
2003 I see from our handy archives that I wrote an item with the
thread title Baghdad-Stalingrad

>I ended "Since this morning, I put the chances of US defeat up from
10% to 20%"

>As of today, who would put the chances of US victory as high as 80%???... <
 
The cases are different. If I read your earlier missive correctly, you predicted that the US/UK was suffering a "Stalingrad" at the hands of Saddam's army. This was a doubtful proposition at the time and didn't pan out. More likely is the current possibility of a "Stalingrad" at the hands of the dispersed and diverse resistance forces in Iraq, only a fraction of which are Saddamites. This meshes well, by the way, with pre-war predictions that the invasion could cause severe social disorder and would be extremely expensive (e.g., Nordhaus). [*]

In the earlier missive, you wrote: >>>I am saying that it is possible for a regime which some consider to be seriously repressive, to rally a population with a change of political line to one of basic democratic patriotism.<<< 
 
But that regime is gone and can't change its political line any more (if it ever could).  

In the most recent exchange, I wrote: >>Further, we should remember that the "coalition" forces in Iraq are by
and large working class. They're being exploited just like (or more
than) factory workers, though at this point there's no surplus-value
directly resulting from their labors. There must be some way to oppose
the war while supporting the troops.<<

Chris B writes: 
>You mean, Jim, like saying, lets bring our boys home, and stop them
getting killed or sexually abusing their captives, because it's
neither safe nor glorious? - and if some peace keeping forces are
necessary under the control of the UN, perhaps it might be cheaper if
they come from muslim countries?<

I'd say _bringing them home now_ is the best idea (rather than being glad when they're killed or wounded). My point is that the soldiers are tools in Bush's hands and he's using them. Some of them are bad people, it's true, but he's the one who's mobilizing their "the wogs begin at Calais" attitudes and giving them scope for exercising them. He (or rather, his junta) is also putting relatively good people into a situation where they are encouraged or even driven to do horrible things. 

Back during the Viet Nam war, a lot of anti-war people didn't show enough respect for the veterans. The bit about the returnees being spat upon either didn't happen or was grossly exagerrated and then used to falsely represent the entire anti-war movement. But we have to avoid even the appearance of blaming the troops. That is, if we want to form a movement to fundamentally change society... 

[*] If anyone has a student who wants to do research, how about a comparison between Nordhaus' predictions about the cost of the Iraq war (that appeared in the NY Review of Books) and the actual costs? 

Jim Devine