> In any case, for U.S. citizens to talk of supporting or not supporting
> this or that Iraqui faction makes about as much sense as proclaiming
> they do or do not support the presidential ambitions of Franklin Pierce.
> This is the absolute height of armchair pontificating.
Well of course I see your point. But on the other hand, if people on this list started saying things like "you know, Pinochet is a great guy" or "we ought to support Tony Blair," I have a feeling you wouldn't see it as all so irrelevant. You'd speak up promptly and say where they're wrong, even though such abstract expressions of support obviously don't have much direct practical effect. That's the whole point of having a discussion like this. You say "I think x," I say "I think y."
As for what we should *do*, by all means we have to keep organizing against U.S. foreign policy. But in order to organize people, you have to offer them some kind of analysis. Pretty soon it does become important what you or I think of the Iraqi resistance, because it's part of the analysis we're offering. If part of "our" schtick is to say "the Iraqi resistance is doing great stuff, hopefully it will get stronger," and then the resistance kills 20 people in a marketplace, "our" organizing loses both moral and practical effect.
Seth