> Leftists in the West (the US, the EU, and Japan)
> should focus on Iran and Palestine, Latin America,
> and Moscow and Beijing (in that order), rather
> than Iraq, on the foreign policy front. Face it
> -- Iraq is a goner. We failed Iraqis, and we
> won't be in a position to do much for them for
> many years to come.
I rub my eyes... and still don't understand your position. Are you really saying that the people in the U.S. and other rich countries should abandon the global, mass opposition to the occupation of Iraq (which involves millions in the rest of the world, including Iraq)? What do you mean by "we failed the Iraqis"? And why the correction of that failure is giving up instead of redoubling the effort?
Why should we give up *now* when the political formation leading the occupation (the Republican Party under Bush) is imploding before our very eyes? Why *now* when there's a widespread political ferment that may effectively challenge -- if not bypass -- the pro-imperialist wing of the Democratic Party? Why *now* when people are questioning the crap the mass media feeds us with? Why now when people are in a position to challenge it by skipping the mass media altogether (thanks to the Internet)?
Look at the current political climate in the U.S. Compare it with what it was ten or five years ago. This has *a lot* to do with the antiwar movement. We may have some ideal notion of what a strong antiwar movement should look like, and the actually-existing movement may not ever measure up to it, but who cares about that? Without *this* antiwar movement, without the antiwar persistent opposition undermining Bush and the Republican Party, exposing the media, and the timid and treasonous character of the Democratic Party leadership, etc., would there be the kind of immigrant workers' movement we are witnessing?
We should be careful about adjudicating cause and effect. I understand it's part of the ruling ideology to question the ability of common folks to effect change (and I know we still fall short of our collective potential), but we don't need to swallow that hook.
Yoshie,
The reason why Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba enjoy some international wiggle room now is *not* the occupation of Iraq, but *the opposition* to the occupation of Iraq (mainly by the Iraqis themselves, but not only by them). The reason why the RP, the DP, and the mass media are being discredited is *not* the war on Iraq, but *the opposition* against it. Mainly, people don't oppose Bush's policies because their phone conversations are being listened to by the government, but their phone conversations are being listened to because people are opposed to Bush's policies. Etc.
True, solidarity is needed in all the places you list. But it should be clear that, in terms of mass human suffering (not to mention potential political consequences), Iraq tops the agenda. Moreover, the focus on Iraq is not mutually exclusive, but complementary, with the struggle to denounce the threats against Iran and Venezuela. The 3 cases taken together show the utter bankruptcy of the current U.S. foreign policy and people take notice.
If the failure in Iraq is pushed to its due conclusion -- revealing itself as the biggest catastrophe to U.S. imperialism in recent history! -- and consequently the troops are brought home *defeated* (as they will, regardless of spin), politically, the U.S. will be in the worst possible position to strike at Iran or Venezuela. So, focus on Iraq!
Julio