he U.S. Deserves to Lose in Iraq but Should We “Support the Iraqi Resistance”?

by PW Mon Aug 22, 2005 23:37

Daniel Finn (ISN) has written a good article, 'Iraq and the Left', on the same topic in the latest issue of Red Banner magazine, available from [email protected] or Books Upstairs across the road from the main gate of Trinity College.

by Anthony G Tue Aug 23, 2005 01:37

Nice one for taking the time to write a summary and putting this article in context for Irish readers rather than just copying and pasting the whole thing.

It's a good article with unambiguous statements getting to the central idea that we have a responsibility to change what's happening close to home rather than far away where we are completely powerless. Part 1 could do with some proof-reading but I'm glad the author gave short shrift to the belief that liberals or the Democrat Party are somehow less imperialist than their fellow politicians. History tells a different story.

The author is right to question what exactly some sections of the anti-war movement mean by support when they use slogans such as "Support the Iraqi Resistance". I also liked the way he contrasts this "support" for the armed resistance in Iraq with the resistance in Afghanistan. Despite the rationale being the same, you just don't see calls to "Support the Taliban!" - for the obvious reason that everyone knows how regressive the Taliban are.

Finally, I'd disagree that his criticism of the US Democratic Party would also be applicable to the Labour Party. I'd say that the Labour Party's stance would be more analagous to that of Nader.

by James Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:23

Michael D. Higgins and one or two others might be more like Nader, but rest of the Labour big shots, i.e. the ones who decide policy, aren’t. He’s really only allowed to make waves when Labour are years away from government and they need to chip away at Fianna Fáil’s support. I have a hazy recollection of a Labour spokeswoman (Jan O’Sullivan?) calling on the government to increase the army presence after the Pit-Stop Ploughshares whacked that plane. That is, to protect U.S. operations there.

It’s not as if the war is popular anyway, so it may pay to appear to be anti-war. On the other hand, the leadership won’t actually commit to anything concrete, such as “no American troops through Shannon” as that would mean serious conflict with the elites. And for a party intent on managing society, they need the agreement of the ruling class. So, unless there’s a worrying upsurge in anti-war activity, they won’t be upsetting too many apple carts. Anyhows, knowing Rabitte, Labour probably just use some U.N. resolution as justification for supporting the U.S.

Let’s have a wee bet on it:
If Labour do a Zapatero (Spanish withdrawal from Iraq) and withdraw the facilities available to the U.S. military at Shannon within three months of entering government, I’ll admit your brilliance and spend the rest of the year being your editorial dogsbody searching for cross-posts and duplicates.

If you lose, then you gotta join the WSM*, and do all the proof-reading for Workers Solidarity and Red & Black Revolution. And clean the office. And feed my cats.

*Obviously, you’ll be pledging undying loyalty to the Chekovist faction.