> > if we _do_ look at Iraq "in particular" --- and US-led
> >imperialism in Iraq "in particular" --- an unpalatable thought might then
> >surface: "is imperialism is all bad?", when it brings new/enhanced
> >connections with the outside world and investment, and the alternatives
> >might well be particularism, clerical obscurantism and/or Arab
> >ethnocentrism..._if_ you want to go down that line of thought.
>
> Hey, don't stop yourself - could you develop this a bit more?
>
> Doug
> Even if imperialism is all bad, who in Asia is fighting against it?
> Anti-Imperialism as a _mass_political movement in the 20th century sense
of
> the term is almost dead. Let Iraqis decide how to deal with the US
> occupation.
>
> Ulhas
I agree with Ulhas here. Even in Iraq the resistance appears to be very small in numbers and largely trading on the well-known (and highly admirable) sensitivity of the US public to casualties in foreign wars. What is often forgotten is that you have to go a long way back in world history to find the cases of imperial conquest comparable in scale, other than the transfer of a colony from one imperial power to another. Considering that, the rate of US casualties since the fall of Baghdad has actually been quite low. And other occupying powers in Iraq at present have suffered very few casualties or _none_ at all.
To address Doug's question: the Saddam's regime was transparent in its violence and its phenomenal acts of both primitive and capitalist accumulation against its own people. Nevertheless Saddam was a master in maintaining control of the population --- a textbook example of dictatorial efficiency --- and I find it hard to see how he could have been overthrown from within, even by someone similar to himself. Sanctions had no effect on the inner circle, neither did the popular uprisings of 1991and the external opposition was small and fragmented. If Qusay Hussein had taken over --- rather than the barking-mad Uday -- the regime may well have lasted for another generation.
To look at this by way of a counterfactual analogy, let's assume for argument's sake, that a hypothetical ultra-imperialist government in Britain, for cynical domestic reasons decided to invade fascist Italy in 1935. (Unlikely given Sir Benito's popularity in the English-speaking world at the time.) It would have been a wrong and stupid thing to do and Britain would have faced (1) condemnation by most of the world, (2) significant Italian resistance (assisted no doubt by Hitler and other fascists) and (3) opposition from the British left.
But what would have been the position of a Gramsci or a Togliatti? No doubt they would have stridently opposed such an invasion _before_ it happened. But assuming that Rome and the industrial regions had quickly fallen, would they have taken up arms against such an invasion? I don't think so. They may well even have "collaborated".
I guess some western sympathisers with the Iraqi resistance are hoping for a mounting backlash in the US. But I'm not encouraged by the historical precedents on that score, e.g. in spite of the 50,000 US dead, Vietnam appears to have had few long-term political effects.
regards,
Grant.