[Peace-discuss] Support for, or no to the Iraqi resistance?

[Morton K. Brussel]

Part of an article by Anthony Arnove, even more fascinating now that  
there is some evidence that the "coalition" forces may have  
contributed to some of the random bombings having occurred in Iraq.   
--mkb

…ARUNDHATI ROY IS absolutely right when she argues, "[I]t is absurd  
to condemn the resistance to the U.S. occupation in Iraq as being  
masterminded by terrorists or insurgents or supporters of Saddam  
Hussein . . . The Iraqi resistance is fighting on the front lines of  
the battle against Empire. And therefore, that battle is our battle.  
Like most resistance movements, it combines a motley range of  
assorted factions. Former Baathists, liberals, Islamists, fed-up  
collaborationists, communists, etc. Of course, it is riddled with  
opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery and criminality. But if we  
are only going to support pristine movements, then no resistance will  
be worthy of our purity. This is not to say that we shouldn't ever  
criticize resistance movements. Many of them suffer from a lack of  
democracy, from the iconization of their ‘leaders,' a lack of  
transparency, a lack of vision and direction. But most of all, they  
suffer from vilification, repression and lack of resources. Before we  
prescribe how a pristine Iraqi resistance must conduct their secular,  
feminist, democratic, nonviolent battle, we should shore up our end  
of the resistance by forcing the United States and its allied  
governments to withdraw from Iraq." That will do far more to advance  
possibilities for the development of democratic, secular, and  
socialist currents in Iraq, the Middle East, and indeed globally,  
than anything Hamad or Finger have to offer.

For the full article, see

http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue39/Arnove39.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050921/8905626c/attachment-0001.htm