So we should pretend that the Iraqi resistance is the equivalent of the NLF or the Sandinistas? The Iraqi resistance is what it is, loose, conflicting, without much in positive content. It hasn't been able to draw on the connections to an international communist movement in the way that the former structures were able to, and it hasn't had decades to develop an organic leadership structure. These are structural issues that have nothing to do with the agency of the resistance force and I would agree that one can't expect such a force to magically produce such as structure in such a short time and in such dire conditions. But at the same time, the U.S. anti-war movement would be sticking its head in the sand to pretend that it could offer that level of sophisticated ideological aid to the struggle. My general response to those who begin to criticize the resistance is to ask how people in the states would respond to occupation. It's kind of a Red Dawn comparison, but at least some will recognize that would produce this kind of response. At very least, it takes the conversation out of the space of pathology.... robert wood
>> Who could disagree with that? I wouldn't.
>
> Someone better. We don't have to say anything except that u.s. troops
> don't belong in Iraq.
>
> We want those troops out. They will not get out until the Iraqi
> resistance kills and maims quite a few more thousands of them. Therefore
> anyone wanting the war over wants many Americans to be killed in Iraq,
> and it's not our business what the motives of those Iraqis are.
>
> We can't quite say that in our agitation, but at least we can abstain
> from mealy-mouth criticism of the Iraqi people who are doing the dying
> for us.
>
> Carrol
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>