--- Lenin's Tomb <leninstombblog at googlemail.com> wrote: "Cockburn seems to suggest that the failure to identify with insurgents in Iraq signifies the hegemony of Democratic discourse and the acceptance of the logic of the war on terror - thus causing many of the problems faced by the antiwar movement."
Your first point, of the "disaggregated" nature of the armed resistance, is the important one. Who on the left even knows the names of more than one or two resistance leaders (Muqtada, and, . . . um)? Not to mention who has the most legitimacy or is most connected to a civilian population. Even al Maliki appears to be part of the resistance now and then!
I think "Out if Iraq" is an adequate slogan for the left in this circumstance.
BobW
> On Nov 14, 2007 12:36 PM, Doug Henwood
> <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Who could disagree with that? I wouldn't.
> >
> > DOug
>
>
> I didn't think you would. The context of the remark
> is an engagement with
> Alexander Cockburn's criticism of the left in the
> NLR. He specifically
> raised the comparison with the NLF and FSLN, and
> while I agree with some of
> what he said, the limitations of the comparison
> point to the reason why it
> is more difficult to galvanise such support for the
> Iraqi resistance.
> Cockburn seems to suggest that the failure to
> identify with insurgents in
> Iraq signifies the hegemony of Democratic discourse
> and the acceptance of
> the logic of the war on terror - thus causing many
> of the problems faced by
> the antiwar movement. However, I really don't think
> that's right. It may
> be symptomatic some of the historic limitations of
> progressive liberalism,
> and the impact of centuries of colonial/imperial
> ideologies on the West, but
> it isn't the source of whatever problems we face and
> I don't think a failure
> to support the resistance is in itself evidence of
> weakness or cooptation.
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>