[lbo-talk] A Day When Mahdi Army Showed Its Other Side

[Marvin Gandall]

Wojtek writes:
>
> To which Marvin replies:
> Are you in favour of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, understanding
> that this means the likelihood of an Islamist government - yes or no?
>
>
> [WS:] So here we are, between the Scylla of the Western capitalism cum US
> interventionism (I do not think it is imperialism in the traditional sense
> of the word) and the Charybdis of anti-Western Islamic nationalism (which
> has all the telltale signs of fascism).  I know it is dandy to verbally
> support the latter while living in the US or Europe, because it is a risk
> free way of acquiring radical credentials while being effectively shielded
> from the horrors of the Islamist nationalism, which are many...


> In sum, being against US policies is not enough, Marvin.  You (and that
> applies to Yoshie, Jean-Christophe and others) need to show that Islamic
> nationalism is a *better* alternative to the unholy triumvirate of Western
> capitalism, US interventionism and Israeli expansionism.  Arguing that it
> is
> just an alternative does not quite cut it.  I do not think that many
> rational people would give up the latter for the former.
===========================
You may not agree with their choice, Wojtek, but many Iranian, Lebanese, and
Iraqi Shias - especially from the poorer classes - have rationally concluded
that they have a better chance of seeing an improvement in their physical
and economic security and their self-respect under their Islamist leaders
than under the "unholy triumvirate of Western capitalism, US interventionism
and Israeli expansionism."

In any case, it's up to them to determinate their fate - not those of us
living, as you say, risk free in the US and  Europe. That's precisely the
point. You can't export democratic forms and values least of all by bayonet;
these correspond to the level of social development. You know this and you
know also, as others have pointed out, that the Mideast conflict is not
about democracy but national sovereignty and development, as are all wars
for Empire.

It's on that basis that I oppose the invasion and occupation - out of
respect for the principle of national self-determination. If I were an
Iraqi, I would be faced with other choices. All I can do is hope they make
the right ones in sorting out matters for themselves, and that my own and
other Western governments allow them to do so. It shouldn't be necessary to
add that the present harsh choices confronting Iraqis are largely the result
of US intervention.

I assume you also opposed the occupation and invasion, so I will ask you the
same question I've have asked others who are concerned that a US withdrawal
will result in a fascist nightmare for the people of Iraq: on what basis do
you call for withdrawal if not in accordance with the principle of
self-determination, and all which that implies?

As the prospect of US withdrawal followed by civil war and Islamic
government looms, the same cold feet evident in the Democratic party and its
surrounding liberal milieu appear also to be surfacing on on this list