> I hope that others in (A) will also come
> forward and say that they don't actually agree with Rumsfeld that all
> or most resistance fighters are "dead enders."
Your tone here smacks of McCarthyism.
> I don't think that
> you and John Lacny said _all_ resistance fighters (as opposed to
> probably the majority or at least many of them) are "Ba'athist or
> Jihadist criminals," but if Dwayne got an impression that "most" here
> (and "many on the left") have decided that they are, I'd have to say
> that he did capture the main message of (A) that resistance fighters
> are most probably mostly bad, that their actions are, on the whole,
> terribly harmful to all other Iraqis and the rest of the world, that
> what they are doing shouldn't be compared with anti-colonial revolts
> in the past at all, etc., even if he overstated the case a bit for a
> rhetorical effect.
I'll put aside the fact that the precis above overstates what I said just as much as Dwayne's did.
Let me ask you a few questions. In about two days of nonviolent demonstrations last month, Sistani and his forces accomplished what the armed resistance failed to do in months of blowing stuff up: They forced the US to scrap its plans for choosing a new Iraqi government. Doesn't that alter your assessment of the effectiveness of armed struggle in this situation?
Another question: All signs now point to the US caving to Sistani on elections. A likely outcome at this point is an agreement for a temporary handover of sovereignty to the Governing Council (formal "end" to occupation) June 30, followed by free national elections late this year to choose a permanent government. Sistani insists only an elected government should be allowed to sign a status-of-forces agreement with the USA. The US may be forced to cave on that too. Under that scenario, a year from now, Iraq will have a democratically elected government and independence from the US. None of this is guaranteed, the US is liable to try all sorts of tricks, but that's the direction things are heading in and Sistani has enormous leverage. So why is armed struggle necessary, unless you're fighting for Sunni dominance as opposed to national independence?
Seth