[lbo-talk] Klein's response to the hitchens, coopers, etc.

[Chip Berlet]

Hi,

 
Comments below:

	-----Original Message----- 

	From: Carrol Cox [mailto:cbcox at ilstu.edu] 

	Sent: Sat 10/2/2004 6:10 PM 

	To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org 

	Cc: 

	Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Klein's response to the hitchens, coopers, etc.

	

	

	Chip Berlet wrote:

	>

	>

	> I still think it is a bad idea to not explicitly point out that some of the opponenets of the US are in fact theocratic fascists.

	

	Cox: What I have trouble seeing is how simply saying some people are bad

	makes a difference if our thought or action does not affect those

	people? How does our disapproval of "theocratic fascists" in Iraq make

	any difference?

	

	Berlet: Stephen Philion has already pointed out that Klein has, in other articles, pointed out the nature of Sadr. I assume that she thinks it matters.  I certainly do. Strategy matters. Ovesimplification might work for demonstration placard but it does not make a good analysis. If we pretend Sadr is an ally now, even by omission, what happens when the situation shifts and the political forces inside the Iraqi population seeking a more democratic outcome in Iraq begin to oppose him?  This is the point of the Frank Smyth article.

	

	Cox: I might go further. The main way we (in the u.s.) can hurt Sadr is by

	solidarity _with_ him. Such solidarity hastens the u.s. withdrawal from

	Iraq, and there is no way that non-fascists in Iraq can oppose Sadr

	until all u.s. power in Iraq is destroyed. Until such time other

	(non-traitorous) elements in Iraq must support Sadr, but once the u.s.

	is gone it becomes possible at least in principle to oppose him.

	Berlet: This just makes no sense to me. The main way we hasten U.S. withdrawal is by building a larger movement inside the U.S. against the war in Iraq. What are you trying to suggest? That by supporting theocratic violence in Iraq we seriously expect the U.S. troops to flee in fear? With Bush as Presdident?  Mr. "I'm tough.?"

	

	Cox:  Surely you do not mean that because Sadr is (let us assume) worse than

	Bush we should therefore support Bush in his opposition to Sadr? But if

	you don't mean that, then what is the material content of any opinion

	(positive or negative) that we have on Sadr?

	Berlet: No, I don't mean we should support Bush and his opposition to Sadr--as you well know--and I previously explicitly wrote. The material content of what we think of Sadr helps us shape an effective strategy than allows for shifting tactics as material conditions change. 

	-cb