http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040209/003376.html
from which:
(2) Definitive comments on “Bravery” are self-evidently quite appropriate for the American left, no doubt. Thus we have the opinion that “real guts” Macho strength is more than these paltry displays of mere Iraqi type resistance: mike larkin wrote -
Wow, it takes real guts to mow down a bunch of desperately poor Iraqi police and then turn hardened criminals loose on the population! Hopefully, we'll withdraw soon so the great work of liberation can...
My reply: Forgive me, I must be really dumb. Does this mean that any form of collaborator with the American imperialist must be protected as he/she is “desperately poor”? Who is then the enemy – ever? Is all form of resistances invalid because you cannot line up the “true enemy” – say Ms Rice - in the sights? Would in fact, that even be better? The problem with individual terrorism, as VIL taught the Narodniki, was that the ruling class will simple find another Ms Rice –[Why is it that we always select Bush for the target?]; & that it will use it as a pretext. When Engels defended the terrorist actions of Vera Zasulich, he admitted that was bending the rules of “sensible tactics” –[my words not his]. What was this Macho commentators’ views of the attacks of the Viet Minh in Saigon bars as the Good time girls were giving some R&R to the marines – they were just after all ‘desperately poor’ people. When is the passage of a resistance into a civil war, to be clear? When is the recognition of a comprador force within a colonized state to be acknowledged. Oh - & what do you do with a comprador force? Indeed, that leads to another question – what do you do with the “desperately poor” workers that are driven into the military and the police force of any country? Are they “the enemy”? Is it wrong to try to “win them over”? Are these debates – REALLY – totally forgotten by the Brave American Left?
====================
I believe Hari's descriptions are casting hard light upon our assumptions.
There is no consensus. There is much confusion.
The subtleties of the Iraqi situation have revealed the limits of present thought and the tendency to settle on an opinion which pleases.
Some have decided to lend rhetorical (perhaps we could even say 'spiritual') support to Iraqis who use lethal violence against the occupation and fellow Iraqis.
Others (most, it seems) have decided that all violent resisters are Ba'athist or Jihadist criminals; I believe Rumsfeld used the term "dead enders"; many on the left apparently agree.
Both extremes of simplicity provide comfort to the believer and his / her internal narrative of how things work. If you dream of the swift collapse of whatever kind of empire the US rules over, the violent resisters are heros; they embarass the superpower, they create fear, uncertainty and doubt in Washington and may inspire the American people to demand an accounting (why did my son / daughter in the service die?).
If you believe in the transformation of this imperial-esque thing into a democratic, non-destructive wonder - the proper fulfillment of the modernist project - the Iraqi gunmen, bombers and RPG men are thugs, pure and simple. They kill innocents, they have no program we're aware of and their actions sow chaos. They are, therefore, anti modern nihilists no more deserving of consideration than a fascist or theocratic group which blew up malls in the US.
...
Round and round the debate goes, pouring a torrent of words onto the wire. The arguments orbit the globe at a far remove from the events under discussion.
There is however, a simple way beyond the impasse. John Lacny has described it again and again in detail with discipline and patience.
It has been described in theory here -
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040209/003143.html
and via an anecdote here -
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040209/003147.html
We must learn what is actually happening in Iraq. We must not depend upon the NYT, or even lefty favorties such as Fisk or P. Cockburn as informative as these sources might be. We must go ourselves or sponsor those who can go on our behalf and intelligently gather information as John has suggested.
We must learn to say 'I don't know enough to say anything definitively but I'm trying to learn more from xyz who's in-country now talking to Iraqis.'
What we do now is this:
Debater 1: Cockburn talked to the Chief of Police in Mosul who says the insurgents are criminals and have no popular support so I conclude that the insurgents are criminals and have no popular support.
Debater 2: Fisk talked to an elderly man in Tikrit who proudly recited the most recent operations of the insurgents. Fisk says the insurgents are very popular so I conclude that the insurgents are very popular.
Some have derided this sort of debate as 'armchair theorizing' and indeed it is. But the way up out of the chair has been shown; why do so many refuse to acknowledge this?
...
Strangely, this reminds me of an earlier discussion about the Mars rovers now slowly lumbering across small portions of that dead planet's surface.
Carl Remick wrote that we should satisfy ourselves with telescope observations instead of "wasting" hundreds of millions of dollars on a "distraction."
Perhaps, but then scientists who now have real data about conditions on Mars would be reduced to the 'armchair theorizing' condition of previous generations, learning little more than Gallileo did.
It seems this disdain for expeditions to correct theory with knowledge extends beyond robotic space probes to the geo-political area. The American left, like so much of the rest of the country, is quite content it seems to observe events via a powerful telescope which reveals some details but tells us little about ground conditions.
DRM
===== ------------ http://www.monroelab.com/blog/the-departed.html Yahoo Instant Message ID: idoru345 secure email account: drm5979 at hushmail.com