Now what exactly is meant by immediate withdrawal? No one believes that a withdrawal could take place overnight. Most of those who call for immediate withdrawal mean in fact an orderly process, based on a clear and internationally sanctioned short timetable.[24] So why do I say we should support "immediate withdrawal" when I don't think this is literally accurate. First, because it is consistent with the language we have used in the cases of other illegitimate occupations. We said "Out Now" for Soviet troops in Afghanistan, and we say "Out Now" for Israeli troops in the occupied Palestinian territories. These couldn't and can't happen overnight, especially if one is talking not just about a troop withdrawal, but a full withdrawal of all the apparatus of occupation. But saying "out now" made clear that we didn't think the occupier had any right to set terms and conditions for its departure and that it should take place on a rapid timetable. The second reason to say immediate withdrawal is that any attempt to formulate a more accurate slogan invariably leads to misunderstanding. "Early" withdrawal, "rapid" withdrawal, "prompt" withdrawal -- all of these are too ambiguous, too open-ended, and too open to cooptation by the U.S. military and other supporters of the occupation.
It is essential that the anti-war movement call for complete U.S. withdrawal. U.S. troops are, of course, the main impediment to Iraqi sovereignty, but they are not the only impediment. (Notice, for example, how those Lebanese who wanted to remove Syrian domination of their country called for the withdrawal of Syrian troops and intelligence agents.) In the case of Iraq, Washington has used the occupation to establish all sorts of instruments of control that could last even if the troops are drawn down. There are the military bases. There are all the economic decrees imposed by former U.S. pro-consul Paul Bremer. There are sweetheart contracts that have been signed with U.S. and other favored firms. There are, in the words of the San Francisco Chronicle, the "small army of bureaucrats, from deputy ministers to inspectors general, with multiyear terms" appointed by Bremer.[25] The bases must be dismantled. The decrees must be abrogated. The contracts and appointees must be revocable and removable at Iraqi discretion.
Finally, the United States must contribute funds for the reconstruction of Iraq -- but without U.S. control. This demand is important because it reflects simple justice and because it is important for the anti-war movement to distinguish itself from those who oppose the occupation simply because it costs too much to Americans. It does cost too much to Americans, but this is not the only or even the main reason to oppose it. And there is a moral debt that now must be repaid, even though it is expensive.
Support "the Resistance"?
Some suggest that there's one other position that the anti-war movement ought to take: namely: support "the resistance." It's not entirely clear what this means. Historically, the Left has sometimes supported some beleaguered forces by sending volunteer forces, as in Spain, or sending weapons. Is this what is being urged? Does it mean we should wear pro-resistance buttons, like "The Resistance Rocks!"? Or is it just a rhetorical position? Leftists often argue about "political support" versus "military support" versus "unconditional military support" -- all of which seems very abstract, with as much relevance to the wider public as the question of how many Marxists can dance on the head of a pin. In any event, however, I think the position of blanket support for the resistance is extremely ill-advised.
Some argue that we should support the resistance in Iraq because as a general principle we should always support those who are fighting against U.S. imperialism.
Here's a formulation from Sharon Smith:
"The antiwar movement must not lose sight of the fact that its main enemy is at home -- and any resistance to that enemy deserves our unconditional support."[26]
But surely she doesn't think we should have supported Japan during World War II or Nazi Germany -- these were probably the toughest opponents U.S. imperialism ever faced.
Now admittedly Japan and Germany were no less imperialist than the United States. But even when this is not the case, should we invariably give our blanket support to the opponents of U.S. imperialism? This position would mean we should have supported the Taliban in 2001 or Saddam Hussein in 2003. But one can oppose the U.S. wars in Afghanistan or Iraq without having to support those governments that the U.S. was attacking. And actually, those who have struck the "strongest blows" against the "main enemy" -- on its home soil -- are the non-governmental actors al-Qaeda and Timothy McVeigh. Do we support them?
But don't people have the right to resist foreign occupation? Of course they do, just as people have many other abstract rights that don't require us to support all those who are entitled to these rights. Did Charles Manson, the cult mass-murderer, have the right to a fair trial? Yes, of course. Did we have to "support" Charles Manson? Of course not. Did the people of Cambodia have the right to oppose U.S. intervention. Certainly. Did we have to support the Khmer Rouge? No. (To be sure, one might have supported the Khmer Rouge at the time on the basis of an incorrect prediction as to its future behavior toward the Cambodian people, but certainly knowing what we now know, do we really want to say we had to support the Khmer Rouge because the Cambodian people had a right to resist?[27]) Likewise, do we support the right of the Peruvian people to overthrow a tyrannical regime. Sure, but there is more than one revolutionary organization in Peru fighting the regime. Do we automatically have to support them all? Even if one of them -- Sendero Luminoso -- is targeting the other and killing progressives more generally?
Thus, there is a distinction to be made between supporting a people's right to resist and supporting a particular resistance movement. This distinction is often elided by those who would have us support "the Iraqi resistance." So for example Paul D'Amato has written an article that calls for supporting "the resistance" with the title "Iraqis have the right to resist,"[28] and Sharon Smith's article is titled "Supporting Iraq's right to resist occupation," with a subtitle that reads -- as though this is the same thing -- "columnist SHARON SMITH explains why you should support the Iraqi resistance."[29]
Some will say that Westerners have no right to "lecture the Iraqi resistance on tactics that are 'acceptable' and 'civilised.'"[30] D'Amato and Smith both quote Walden Bello and Arundhati Roy to lend weight to this argument. Bello and Roy do call for supporting "the Iraqi resistance," but they both say something else as well. Bello declares:
"What western progressives forget is that national liberation movements are not asking them mainly for ideological or political support. What they really want from the outside, from progressive like us, is international pressure for the withdrawal of an illegitimate occupying power so that internal forces can have the space to forge a truly national government based on their unique processes."[31]
And Roy is quoted as saying:
"Before we prescribe how a pristine Iraqi resistance must conduct their secular, feminist, democratic, nonviolent battle, we should shore up our end of the resistance by forcing the U.S. and its allied governments to withdraw from Iraq."[32]
Now in fact I agree that our job here in the imperialist countries -- our duty really -- is to work for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. So the charge that we have no right to call for the U.S. to impose its will on Iraqis is irrelevant. I am not calling for the U.S. to impose its will on anyone. Our demand is "U.S. Out Now!" But those who urge us to "support the resistance" aren't just calling for us to get the U.S. out; they are calling for us to make an affirmative statement of support for certain Iraqis and they want us to give this endorsement automatically, without considering what it is we are endorsing, merely by virtue of the fact that these Iraqis oppose the United States.
One more example: do I support in principle the right of the Filipino people to resist oppression. Undoubtedly. Do I support the Communist Party of the Philippines, one of the leading revolutionary groups in the country? Well, the CPP has a nasty habit of liquidating its opponents, including on the left, and may even have put Walden Bello on a hit list.[33] So, no I don't support them. Does that mean that I want the U.S. to send troops or covert operatives to combat the CPP? Not at all. I oppose U.S. intervention in the Philippines and I support some Philippine oppositionists. But I don't support them all.
Some people seem to feel that if one does not support a resistance movement then automatically and by definition one has to be supporting U.S. imperialism. But this doesn't follow. One could oppose Saddam Hussein or the Taliban without having to support U.S. imperialism, and indeed one could oppose Saddam and the Taliban while opposing at the same time U.S. military intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan. Most situations don't have just two sides. If you support the people of Colombia, especially its indigenous people, you will support neither the U.S./government forces nor the FARC -- because both are today the enemies of the Colombian people.[34] <SNIP>
Note that Shalom thanks Gilbert Achcar, whose roots are in the Mandelite FI (see his recent collection from Monthly Review Press on Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, with many pieces by him from Int'l. Viewpoint, the excellent Trot monthly from the 70's onwards, including a resolution co-written with Tariq Ali condemning the S.....t invasion of Afghanistan), and Joanne Landy of New Politics magazine. A certain garrolous Croatian-American SSC figure has also endorsed this piece. With those sidenotes, folks who dislike Trotskywasm or New Politics, can now disregard and/or pour on the vitriol ;-)
-- Michael Pugliese