[lbo-talk] Galloway and Gandall

[Luke Weiger]

Cox correctly noted that courage, strength, and indefatigability aren't
necessarily praiseworthy.  And indeed, if Galloway had said something like
"your courage, strength, and indefatigability have served you well as a
butcher of men," I'd have no quibble.  But Galloway said, "I _salute_ your
courage..."  Salutation isn't merely notation.

Gandall wrote, "I support the armed resistance, warts and all, on principled
grounds (the
right to militarily resist occupation) and because I think it's important
that the US invasion is decisively repelled in Iraq,"

To revisit a line I've given voice to in the past: surely the Japanese had
no right to militarily resist the allied occupation after WWII--what
relevant differences would one invoke to argue that (self-described)
Baathists and Islamists have such a right?

" It will make future interventions much more difficult."

I think this is just about the only reason why leftists support the violent
Iraqi resistance, which might go a ways towards explaining why the support
is generally so tepid.  (Or, as you put it, "given the political colouration
of the resistance, I can understand why there is such ambivalence on the
left in supporting it.)

-- Luke