Listening to the Iraqi Left on the ISIS Crisis

It's difficult to know what a socialist policy towards Iraq should be beyond deep suspicion of the warhawk architects of the US invasion. Some have formula, isolationist, non-intervention, and revolutionary, that they apply to every situation.  Often those formula seem unconvincing or incomplete to me. A better place to start, I think, is looking at the viewpoints of the Iraqi left. There are four-plus organizations I would  look at:

•  the traditional Iraqi Communist Party (wikipedia, English ICP site, the Iraqi Letter)
• the Worker-Communist Party (wiki,  website) which has provided leadership to  the Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq, the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq and the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq.
• the National Democratic Party, a 2003 revival of the revive the historic  National Democratic Party of the 1940s and 1950s, which was inspired from the British labour movement and, while it did not define itself as "socialist," it cooperated with regional parties in the Asian Socialist Bureau.
• the Kurdish political parties (including Kurdistan Democratic Party, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and others.) The PUK is affiliated with the Socialist International, the Progressive Alliance, and the Party of European Socialism.  I do think that socialists should support the right of Kurdish self-determination.

 I couldn't find a statement by the National Democratic Party, but did find information on the other three.

Martin Thomas of the British Workers Liberty group interviewed Nadi Mahmood of the Worker Communist Party of Iraq.

Nadia Mahmood of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq told Solidarity:

"What's going on now with ISIS is a new phase of the sectarian violence which reached its peak in 2006-7 with the bombings in Samarra".

That simmering sectarian civil war died down in 2007-8 and after. But, said Nadia: "After the Arab Spring [in 2011], the Sunni [minority in Arab Iraq] became more assertive.

"In 2013, [Iraq's Shia-Islamist prime minister] Maliki ended the [peaceful, and not sharply Islamist] protest camps outside the roads to Fallujah and ignored their demands.

"Now in 2014, after the election two months ago, Maliki wants to stay in power and has marginalised even the other Shia parties.

"Because of the sectarian nature of the government, this sort of violence will happen again and again. Socialists need to call for a secular state.

"The left and the labour movement in Iraq are not powerful right now, so first of all we need a secular state without religious identity which will give us ground to build. The target now is to end the sectarian nature of the state".

A statement of the Iraqi Communist Party from the Iraqi Letter, a blog associated with the party.

It is truly the battle of the homeland that is now being threatened. Political, material, logistic and military prerequisites must be provided to stop the expansion of this malignant cancer. Terrorism is targeting all, and it has no religion or denomination or nationality, and it wants to finish off the political process in our country and return it back to the days of tyranny and obscurantism.

Terrorism is the enemy of all. Our people, of various nationalities, religions and sects, and of all ideological and political affiliations, should be aware of the reality of the dangers and beware of falling into what Da’ish (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Isis) and the regional and international powers standing behind it are planning, with the aim of destabilizing national unity and stirring up sectarian strife and narrow nationalist and chauvinist tendencies.

We in the Iraqi Communist Party, while condemning terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, renew our full support and unlimited backing for the military and security forces, and call upon all the political blocs and parties, whether in power or outside, to meet immediately and conduct an urgent national dialogue. This should consider ways of confronting effectively the forces of evil, aggression and crime, defeating the terrorists, and providing political, material and moral support for the armed forces in the ongoing battle, in addition to sound management of the overall security policy.

See also:

• Iraqi CP calls for Urgent National Conference to Defeat Terrorism 
• Communist rally in Baghdad against terrorism

 Kurdish Parties

The BasNews site has an article on the positions of the two main Iraqi Kurdish parties.

the leading KDP believes that the Kurdish enclave should remain neutral and protect only its territories, including the disputed areas, the PUK claims that the Kurdish region should provide the Iraqi army with military support.

BasNews has been informed that Iranian Agha Sobhani met the Chief of the Executive Body of Polit Bureau of PUK Mullah Bakhtiar. Following the meeting Bakhtiar published an article in a local Kurdish newspaper in which he wrote: “in fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS), Kurds shouldn’t just defend, they should participate in the fight”.

 “What we can do now is only protect the Kurdistan Region. The US, Iran and Iraq will hit ISIS and the Ba’athists, the Kurdistan’s excuse for only defending the region will appear weak. For this reason Kurds should have policies that allow them to deal with Baghdad, US and neighbors. Kurds should consider that a federal Iraq must survived this plan by ISIS and Ba’athists and Kurds should participate in it,” said Bakhtiar.

 In contrast 

member of KDP Leadership Council Ali Awni told BasNews that high Shiite marja Ayatollah Sistani has called for Jihad and that this is a conflict between Sunni and Shia.

“Our case is different, it is an ethnic case. Therefore, it is better to not be part of this fight in order not to lose our case,” said Awni.

Awni noted that while other party’s may pull them into the fight, he believes that the Kurdish government’s duty is to protect the region, including the disputed areas.

Interesting analysis of Iraqi election

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Martin Thomas of the UK-based left-wing group Alliance for Workers Liberty has an interesting analysis of the just concluded Iraqi election.  The last paragraph is especially important, in my opinion.

The left had no real presence. The Worker-communist Party of Iraq originally decided to stand - a welcome move, since we in the AWL had argued with them back in 2005 that they should contest the elections then - but then pulled out. The Iraqi Communist Party did stand more-or-less independently this time, rather than joining a coalition with bigger bourgeois forces as previously - but only "more or less" independently, since they presented themselves as the "People's Union", with no distinct working-class or socialist claim. I don't know their vote, but it is unlikely to have been big. [see Harry Barnes' posts on the history of the ICP here--nar]

However, there was some political movement in the run-up to the elections, and some beginning of political differentiation as distinct from the jostling of communal blocs. All the main coalitions, apparently, were at pains to present themselves as non-sectarian, nationalist, and at least semi-secular.

But the "politics" in the election were a bit more like "politics", a bit less like straight communal-bloc haggling.

This does not mean that Iraq has achieved a stable (although limited and bourgeois) democracy, or that the 2003 invasion is vindicated. Between 2003 and now have come at least 100,000 civilian deaths. Each month dozens more are killed by Al-Qaeda-type bombings. Vast numbers have been maimed or forced to flee their homes. Iraqi society has been atomised and brutalised. Even the formalities of democracy are very shaky in Iraq.

Despite the Maliki government's repeated promises of a democratic labour law, the government still has to hand laws from the Saddam era which give it a legal basis for snuffing out Iraq's much-harassed new labour movement as soon as it feels strong enough to do that. Paradoxically, a "strengthening of democracy" in Iraq in the shape of a more solid political system, and a government with more credibility and authority, could well bring a rapid risk of the stifling in Iraq of the element of democracy most important for socialists, the ability of workers to organise and agitate independently.

The shifts in Iraq do, however, show that it is (and has been since 2003) important for socialists to agitate and organise on democratic issues within Iraq, rather than limiting themselves to denunciation of the USA. They reinforce the urgency of building international support for the Iraqi union movement's demand for a democratic labour law, codifying the right to organise and to strike

New Poll from Iraq

The BBC has released a new poll of Iraqis. This is an interesting, and encouraging, result showing a dramatic l increase in support for democracy and a decline in support for an Islamic state or a strong man.

Read the story here or download a PDF of the poll here.

The poll, it should be added, doesn't provide support for supporters of the war.

But war opponents should move beyond anti-war slogans and reflexes and really support the democratic trends and developments in Iraq.

Roberts--Intelligence Failure

Jon Stewart skewers Kansas Senator Pat Roberts over his failures as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Dumbest President--Ever!

Okay, you're no friend of George Bush, you voted against him twice, you've opposed nearly every thing he's done as President, you detest him and his politics. But you've thought it was laying it on a little heavy when people started calling him the worst President ever. After all, there is some stiff competition--Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, James Polk (Mexican American war), Grover Cleveland (suppressed the Pullman strike), James Buchanan, and Franklin Pierce.

Well, whether he's the worst or not, he certainly appears to be the dumbest and most incompetent.

According to a recent NY Times article, Bush is being interviewed by author Robert Draper. There is a simply amazing passage in the article

Mr. Bush acknowledged one major failing of the early occupation of Iraq when he said of disbanding the Saddam Hussein-era military, "The policy was to keep the army intact; didn't happen." But when Mr. Draper pointed out that Mr. Bush's former Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, had gone ahead and forced the army's dissolution and then asked Mr. Bush how he reacted to that, Mr. Bush said, "Yeah, I can't remember, I'm sure I said, 'This is the policy, what happened?' " But, he added, "Again, Hadley's got notes on all of this stuff," referring to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser.

"I can't remember." One of the most fateful decisions of his Presidency and Bush can't remember! He didn't have enough "leadership" to make sure that his decisions were implemented. Dumbest President. Ever

Needed: a reality-based peace movement

Shouldn't a proposal to effectively mobilize the American public be--at a minimum--
reality-based? A popular proposal by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith is being widely circulated on the internet and beyond. Like many statements by very prominent anti-war spokesmen appears to be based on either wishful thinking or propaganda braggadocio or willfulignorance.

"Over 60% of Americans want this war over--yesterday," Brecher and Smith shout.

There is huge difference betwen poll questions which ask whether the war is/was a mistake or do you approve of George Bush's handling of the war and questions which ask whether people favor an immediate withdrawal.

These polls can be found with great ease on the internet. They can be found here http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Here are three polls from early June.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll

"More specifically, do you think that we should have an immediate and
orderly withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, or not?"

Should 37% Should Not 59%

LA TIMES

"In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?"

Withdraw right away 25%
Withdraw within a year 43%

USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL

Are you more likely to support a Presidential candidate who
.
"Supports legislation that would cut off funding for the war in Iraq"

More likely 33%
Less Likely 60%

The fact is that only a minority of Americans support the out now position and it is a act of movement-delusion to pretend otherwise. Cute tactics may make small groups of anti-war activists feel warm and fuzzy and make them feel justified in denouncing the sell-outs of the Democratic Party, Move-On, and UFPJ. (To be honest, I suspect that the UFPJ and even DP
activstis are not immune for this wishful thinking syndrome.) But it won't do much to end the war or build a progressive majority.

If the majority are with you then you only have to come up with some magic formula so that the you can shout so loud that the media can't ignore you. But an entirely different approach is needed if only a minority is with you and there is a potential majority which might be organized-- if not to your most preferred position then to something close to it.

____________________________________________________________________

Beecher and Smith Proposal

IRAQ MORATORIUM September 21 and every Third Friday thereafterToday the Iraq Moratorium project steps onto the public stage!Over 60% of Americans want this war over--yesterday. The political processis moving glacially, at best, to make that happen. It's got to stop! We'vegot to stop it!The idea is simple. On September 21 and on every subsequent Third Friday,millions of Americans will break with their
daily routine to take someconcrete step to demand an end to the war and the
return home of thetroops.The hallmark will be the wearing of black ribbons
and armbands, inmourning for all of those who have died in this
senselessadventure--Iraqis, American and other coalition troops, and others.
All ofus who want this war ended can decide what steps we will
take,individually or with others, on September 21. Together, acting where
welive, work and study, we will create a mighty shout so loud that the
mediawon't be able to white it out and the politicians won't be able to
ignoreit.The Iraq Moratorium is not an organization. It was initiated by a
smallgroup of anti-war activists from very diverse backgrounds. We see it as
aproject that will strengthen the work of existing anti-war groups. Evenmore
important, the clear and simple message, the local focus and thevariety of
activities it can encompass will bring into motion greatnumbers who have not
yet taken any action against the war.It is a 21st century project: the reach
of the Internet and the Web willhelp reach tens of millions with this
message. Please help by forwardingthis message widely.To learn more, to
pledge to take part in the Iraq Moratorium, and to getinvolved, please go to
http://iraqmoratorium.org

Anti-war rally in Washington

I didn't watch CSPAN coverage of Saturday's anti-war rally in Washington, but here's an interesting comment by someone who attended.

"Joe and I are heading down to the peace rally in an hour, to take photos, etc. And I'm watching it on C-Span right now, and I'm asking myself - though I'm not surprised - why is some woman from the "US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation" speaking? And why is she speaking, ad naseum, about the "Israeli occupation of Palestine" rather than speaking aboutthe war in Iraq? She gave 10% of her speech to Iraq and spent the rest of the time railing against Israel?

First off, wrong topic.

Second off, way to alienate most Jews in America, a rather influential group of people we could use as allies.

Third off, way to alienate the rest of us who don't hate Israel, don't hate the Palestinians, and don't feel that the problem over there will be solved by simply blaming everyting on Israel - there's more than enough blame to go around. And in any case, this rally has nothing to do with Israel leaving Palestine, so STFU and stay on topic.

I'm sorry, but as many of you know, I tend to have issues with "peace rallies," not because I have issues with peace or rallies, but because I find myself cringing when I see the substance of them, who's attending, the issues they feel compelled to bring up (Mumia, Israel, trans fats, the suffering of amoeba, whatever). Would it kill someone organizing these events to tell the speakers to speak about Iraq or don't speak at all? Would it kill people to try to present their message in a way that appeals to themajority of Americans?..."

A later post from the same blogger was more positive.

Where Kansas Reps Stand on Bush's Escalation

Think Progress has compiled where almost all of the House and Senate stand on Bush's escalation.

THE CURRENT TALLY

(Last update: 11 AM, 1/19/07)

	Dems	Reps	Ind	Total
Oppose	213	31	1	245
Lenn Oppoose	24	19	0	43
Lean Support	0	24	0	24
Support	2	106	1	109
Refuse to Answer	4	32	0	36
Unknown	39	39	0	78
Total	282	251	2	535

Here's the Kansas delegation. Who'd have thunk that Sam Brownback has the most forthright position against the escalation. Will he follow it up by opposing attempts to filibuster an anti-escalation resolution? Will he join Chuck Hagel in supporting the anti-escalation resolution?

Rep. Jerry Moran (R, Ks-1) Lean Oppose

Moran says it doesn't make sense to send more troops if the Iraqi people aren't willing to set aside sectarian differences and commit to rebuilding their country.

Rep. Nancy Boyda (D, KS-2) Declined to answer

Democrat Nancy Boyda also declines to take a definitive position; she says she has –quote — “deep concerns'’ about the plan.

Rep. Dennis Moore (D, KS-3)Declined to answer

Democrat Dennis Moore isn’t taking a formal position on the plan, but he says any decision will be carefully scrutinized by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R, KS-4)Support

“President Bush outlined a way forward in Iraq with Iraqi troops meeting the challenges and taking the lead. American forces will assist Iraqi troops as they stand up and take responsibility.”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R, KS) Oppose

“‘I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer,’ Brownback said while traveling in Iraq. ‘Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution.’”

Sen. Pat Roberts (R, KS) Support

Roberts said his support for Bush’s plan is conditioned upon Iraqi forces stepping up efforts to end the sectarian violence and achieve stability. “At this point, I believe it is the only realistic choice given the regional instability and danger we face,” Roberts said. “But this support is not without limits if, as this mobilization takes effect, we do not see measurable progress.”

You can reach the Capitol switchboard toll-free at 800-614-2803. Just provide your zip code or ask for your members of Congress by name. It looks like Boyda and Moore need to hear from their constituents.

Analyzing the Bush speech

Several valuable analysis I've seen:

• Anthony Cordesman senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington in the New York Times. This is an interactive analysis. Scroll through Bush's speech, click on the highlighted sections, and read Cordesman's comments.
• Martin Thomas of the UK's left-wing Alliance for Worker's Liberty "Bush Blunders Towards More Bloodshed in Iraq"
  

George W Bush's "new policy" in Iraq is a recipe for more bloodshed on the lines of the assault on Fallujah in November 2004 - but also, so it seems more and more, a botched compromise which makes no sense from any angle at all.

Bush's basic line - a "surge" of 20,000 more US troops into Iraq, raising the numbers there to the highest level since 2003 - comes from right-wing wonks Jack Keane and Fred Kagan, the sort of people who believe that the USA could have won the Vietnam war with "one more push".

But Keane and Kagan have written: "Bringing security to Baghdad - the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development - is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail..." - in fact, in their view, to make things worse. (Washington Post, 27 December 2006).

What Keane and Kagan see as needing at least 30,000 more combat troops - a nearly 50% increase on the 70,000 combat troops (140,000 total) currently in Iraq - is much more limited than Bush's stated objectives with his smaller "surge".

...using US withdrawal as a threat to make Maliki shape up is stupid, and not only because Bush obviously has no intention of carrying out the threat. The collapse of the Maliki government would trouble the government ministers much less than it would trouble the USA. The government ministers would mostly flee back to London, or some other city of exile, or retreat to an area of Iraq securely under their (Shia or Kurdish) control. The USA would be left with one of the world's most pivotal regions, the oil-rich Gulf, convulsed in all-out war and chaos.

And the workers and the peoples of Iraq? They lose out either way. Their only hope is the emergence of a secular and democratic pole within Iraqi politics, led by the labour movement, which can fight both the US/UK and the sectarian militias. Our duty is solidarity with the much-harassed Iraqi labour movement trying to do that.

• Paul Starr, "The Power Party vs. the Peace Party"

Far from making the United States stronger, Bush’s policies have dissipated American power. In his speech, the president suggested that if the United States failed in Iraq, Iran would be emboldened. But Iran has obviously already been emboldened because its leaders believe that an America mired in Iraq can make only empty threats.

To use power ineffectually is to destroy it.

• Paul Rogers (Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University and is openDemocracy’s International Security Editor)
  

the continuing presence of 140,000 US troops (and now, after Bush's speech of 10 January, quite probably 20,000-30,000 more) for years to come is an unbelievable "gift" to the al-Qaida movement, presenting the far enemy to them on what is, to a large extent, home territory (see Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, "The dividends of asymmetry: al-Qaida's evolving strategy", 18 December 2006).

Iraq is already providing a first-rate jihadi combat training-zone and, from an al-Qaida perspective, this is without any risk of changing. They (and many western analysts) simply do not believe that the United States can win in Iraq. Therefore, the longer it loses the better. In light of the fact that al-Qaida deals in decades, it has the prospect of decades of training for jihadi cohorts.

• John Robb of the Glogal Guerillas blog
  

The latest US "strategy" for Iraq, a small increase in manpower focused on controlling sections of Baghdad, has generated substantial debate/commentary in the US. The reason for this has vastly more to do with domestic political issues than anything substantive in the military sphere. To wit, almost nothing in the current plan -- from troops to tactics -- has changed in any meaningful way. Further, the general situation of country-wide chaos will not change due to any efforts to pacify select Baghdad neighborhoods ...

Of course, the failure of these periodic efforts may be due to an inability to revisit a key assumption upon which the present US effort is based: that strong states tend to form naturally if provided the right minimalist conditions. I believe the opposite is true: that states, once broken, tend to remain hollow and in perpetual failure. The reason is that in the current environment minimalist conditions yield social disintegration.

The Power and Interest News Report

With U.S. President George W. Bush's new Iraq strategy unveiled, it is clear that the administration is running out of options. The "surge" policy that will now be implemented is an attempt to somewhat stabilize the situation in Baghdad. This is the most that the new policy can hope for -- temporary stabilization -- because a surge in troops does little to address the issues that are fomenting the insurgency. Once the surplus soldiers are called back, or once the insurgents adapt to the increased numbers, attacks will escalate again and Washington will be in the same position that it is in now.

Boyda dissapointing stand on escalation

Last Friday, The Think Progress blog took a look at some disappointing comments by newly-elected Kansas Rep Nancy Boyda.

FACT CHECK: Congress Does Not Have To Fund Escalation In Iraq

Last night on ABC News, newly elected Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) said she would support funding for 20,000-40,000 more troops in Iraq because President Bush “is the commander in chief. …We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.” Watch it: [on the Think Progress site by clicking here.]

Boyda is wrong on the facts. A recent Center for American Progress memo explains how Congress could — and should — prevent Bush from sending more troops into a civil war in Iraq without a clear mission. An excerpt:

Although the new Congress should not refuse to provide the funds that the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan need, it can place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number.

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran, came out strongly in opposition to escalation, saying, “We need to listen to the military experts, people like Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Abizaid, that say, ‘Listen, the surge isn’t going to work.’” Another newly elected member, Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC) was more circumspect. Shuler said he didn’t think escalation was “the solution” but would consider it if “that’s what our military leaders said.”

Here are the phone and fax numbers for Rep. Boyda

Congressperson Boyda's telephone numbers:

Washington, DC office: Phone:(202) 225-6601 Fax:(202) 225-7986

Topeka office Phone:(785) 234-8111 Fax:(785) 234-9111

Hopefully, she'll get an earful on February 3 at the Second Congressional District Democratic Party convention in Topeka where she'll be the special guest.

Books on Iraq

EPIC, the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, which I have found to be one of the most reliable sources of information on Iraq has come out with a list of the ten best books on Iraq in 2006, honorable mentions, classics, and a longer list of recommended books. It's a very well done page. For each of the recommended books there is a separate more information page which has excerpts from reviews, links to articles by the authors, and so forth.

Take a look, and consider a New Year's Resolution to read at least one book on Iraq in 2007. And consider ordering it through the EPIC site as a portion of your order will benefit their work.

Top 10 Books of 2006

(1) Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward -- A New Approach by The Iraq Study Group, James A. Baker III, and Lee H. Hamilton
(2) The Prince of the Marshes: And Other Occupational Hazards of a Year in Iraq by Rory Stewart
(3) Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks (Penguin Group, 2006, 482 pgs, ISBN: 159420103X).
(4) Baghdad Burning II: More Girl Blog from Iraq by Riverbend (The Feminist Press, 2006, 190 pgs, ISBN: 1558615296) and Baghdad Burning: Girl Blog from Iraq (The Feminist Press, 2005, 304 pgs, ISBN: 1558614893).
(5) Reaching for Power: The Shi'a in the Modern Arab World by Yitzhak Nakash
(6) The Kurds: Nationalism and Politics edited by Faleh A. Jabar and Hosham Dawod
(7) The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq by Patrick Cockburn
(8) No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah by Bing West
(9) Ahmad's War, Ahmad's Peace: Surviving Under Saddam, Dying in the New Iraq by Michael Goldfarb
(10) Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green

Christian Caryl discusses four recent books about Iraq in a an article ("What About the Iraqis?") in the latest New York Review of Books. It's well worth reading, sort of a Cliff Notes if you don't have the time to read the 3,988 pages in EPIC's list. Here are two crucial paragraphs.

It is an aspect of the problem often overlooked in reporting of the war, but Iraq today is a country in the grip of revolutionary change. The American occupation swept away the institutions of Saddam's regime without providing for new ones to replace them. It encouraged a remarkable flowering of pluralism in expression (including satellite television, avidly competing newspapers, and cell phones), allowing Iraqis to discuss the problems of their own society with a freedom that is still rare in the Arab world, while failing to provide many basic services or respond to widespread unemployment. It organized democratic elections and stimulated the growth of local self-government without ever dealing with the conditions that prevented these new participatory institutions from effectively exercising power—and watched helplessly as they were bypassed by other forms of community self-assertion... [e.g., activist clerics] Most catastrophically of all, the occupation government never managed to offer Iraqis a basic level of security —a situation that led to the expansion of already existing militias and encouraged the growth of new ones.

Many American commentators mistakenly assume that the democratic freedoms brought by the Americans have simply allowed the inherent weaknesses of Iraqi society to come out into the open. Certainly Iraqi society has always been deeply divided against itself; but under the occupation it has been turned upside down. The middle class, under attack from criminals and murderous ideologues, is abandoning the country. According to the Iraq Index of the Brookings Institution, the authorities have issued two million passports since August 2005. An estimated 40 percent of Iraq's professional classes have left the country. New elites are rising in their place, sometimes through the use of violence; needless to say, this is not the sort of civil society that the Americans were hoping to promote. There is evidence, for example, that some of the Shiite parties have embarked on systematic assassination campaigns against leading Baathist officials, including secret policemen and air force officers who flew missions against Iran during the Iran–Iraq war in the 1980s.

Saddam Execution

David Hirst has a good obit of Saddam Hussein in The Guardian

The Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was executed this morning at the age of 69, may not yield many general biographies - he was personally too uninteresting for that - but he will be a case study for political scientists for years to come. For he was the model of a certain type of developing world despot, who was, for over three decades, as successful in his main ambition, which was taking and keeping total power, as he was destructive in exercising it.

Yet at the same time, he was commonplace and derivative. Stalin was his exemplar. The likeness came from more than conscious emulation: he already resembled him in origin, temperament and method. Like him, he was unique less in kind than in degree, in the extraordinary extent to which, if the more squalid forms of human villainy are the sine qua non of the successful tyrant, he embodied them. Like Stalin, too, he had little of the flair or colour of other 20th-century despots, little mental brilliance, less charisma, no redeeming passion or messianic fervour; he was only exceptional in the magnitude of his thuggery, the brutality, opportunism and cunning of the otherwise dull, grey apparatchik.

American Left Debates Iraq and the anti-war movement

Two American left journals, The Progressive and New Politics recently featured debates about the left, the antiwar movement, and Iraq.

In the June Progressive Erik K. Gustafson, the executive director of the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), based in Washington, D.C. argues that "Abandonment of Iraq Is Wrong," while Norman Solomon executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy says "US Out of Iraq Now.

The summer issue of New Politics has a wide-ranging symposium of reactions to three differing perspectives on Iraq in their Winter issue by Barry Finger, Wadood Hamad, and Glen Perusek.

Below are links to individual articles in the New Politics symposium and brief excerpts to give the tenor of the piece.

Anthony Arove editor of Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War and a member of the editorial board of International Socialist Review.

It is especially important that the left should reject the racist and elitist idea that it is for us in the United States to decide the future of Iraq. Contra Hamad and Finger, it is not our job to dictate to the Iraqi people what form their resistance to occupation must take -- let alone to require that it be "rational," as Hamad suggests in language less from Hitchens than from Samuel Huntington, or that a movement facing the greatest military power in history must use "peaceable means" against its enemy.

Barry Finger, a member of New Politics editorical board

...we must position ourselves toward that process of struggle which can develop a leadership able to mobilize the masses and attract international support in its resistance to the American occupation without sacrificing the Iraqi nation to the resurgent forces of jihadist fascism.

That is, we support an anti-imperialist movement that does not jeopardize the demands and just aspirations of the working class, of women and gays, of secularists, of national minorities and democrats to the cause of national salvation. We recognize that a nation "redeemed" by authoritarian movements, whether clerical or Baathist, would leave Iraq an empty shell; independent after a sense, but an Iraq whose independence in the absence of popular democratic participation would be a mockery of "self-determination" by any socialist standard. It is to the latent national leadership of these groupings of the oppressed that we counterpose both to the defeatist consciousness of those socialists-in-retreat who, reluctantly or zealously, look to imperialism to clear a path to democracy and to those slow learners and outright nitwits on the left for whom pleading the cause of "the armed resistance," however reactionary its social program and aspirations, is an adequate and sufficient political orientation.

Wadood Hamad, research physicist, political theorist and activist, currently living in Vancouver, Canada.

Ignoring nuanced Iraqi politics and societal dynamics has shamelessly led segments of the left to cheer for a thuggish, reactionary insurgency set on a fruitless course to curtailing, and potentially halting, U.S. hegemonic policies. No crystal ball is needed to understand Iraq -- or indeed the Middle East, just a rational reading of history and a commitment to the inviolable sanctity of human life. Human beings, not machine guns, build progress. The rightist view of democracy as a commodity that can be exported using laissez-faire economics has infected those leftist segments in a serious way. It prompted them to ignore local (mal)development and the necessity to overhaul a highly corrupt regional power structure; and, in a naïve way, they have come to share the neocon's basic principle of ethnonationalist development.

Thus, elections in Iraq have been a mammoth achievement not because, but in spite, of U.S. desire. It was Sayyed Ali al-Sistani, the Shiite religious authority, who, over U.S. objections, was unwavering in his demand to their eventually taking place.

Peter Hudis, a member of the editorial board of News and Letters

... that many today are "stuck between two inadequate visions" -- either apologizing for U.S. imperialist actions or "cheering any misguided ‘apparent' resistance to imperialism." Avoiding these false alternatives is not only needed to develop a successful antiwar movement; it is needed to ensure that the idea of freedom is not forsaken by today's radicals.

...the secular, democratic left in Iraq today is weak and marginalized. That is all the more reason for us to extend an active hand of solidarity with it. Even if it were true that pro-democratic leftists in Iraq lack a "mass base," we should do what we can to strengthen these forces, hammered as they are by the two terrorisms of the U.S. occupation and the fundamentalists.

Letter from Tom Unterrainer, Nottingham England

The antiwar movement needs to make a turn from pure objection to the continued occupation -- a strategy that either explicitly or implicitly advocates "victory for the [reactionary] resistance" -- toward solidarity with democratic forces in Iraq. The question needs to be raised in trade union and labor organisations, in antiwar groups and in the wider press. In so doing, socialists will fulfil their obligations as internationalists and democrats and re-emphasise the centrality of the working class to our perspective. The fact that we have to carry this message into such movements is an indication of how far some have drifted from the ideas of socialism towards a reactionary anti- imperialism.

Joanne Landy co-director of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy

Those of us who advocate immediate withdrawal of the United States and its dwindling number of allies from Iraq make a mistake, however, if we try to assure people that withdrawal will necessarily produce a positive outcome. It may be that the grotesque polarization fostered by the U.S. war and occupation has already succeeded in legitimizing and strengthening reactionary elements in the resistance to the point where they will be able to impose their retrograde agenda on the Iraqi people. But one thing is for sure: the longer the U.S. stays in Iraq the less likely a democratic, secular outcome for Iraq becomes. The only hope for democrats in Iraq is a speedy end to the brutal occupation of the country. And the only hope for democrats internationally is to break out of the terrible symbiotic relationship between the U.S. empire and the reactionary forces that feed off of its brutality, by opposing both of them.

The link to Glen Perusek's summer article ("Empire and Resistance") isn't working, so from his Winter contribution

The search for a secular left in Iraq today is to start off on the wrong foot. It would be better to recognize that all political tendencies are likely to bear an Islamic inscription, and that this fact alone scarcely commits them to any particular political outlook.

Socialists in the Marxist tradition have historically held that in conflicts between imperialist countries and colonies or quasi-colonies, the right to national self-determination is the prime concern.

Staughton Lynd a veteran peace activist, historian, and labor lawyer.

We should demand immediate withdrawal of United States forces, the dismantling of all United States bases, and an end to all attempts by United States corporations to penetrate the Iraqi oil industry, without "endorsing" the Iraqi resistance.

Stephen R. Shalom, a member of the New Politics editorial board

THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT NEEDS to demand the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and an end to the U.S. domination of Iraq, not because we don't care about Iraqis, but precisely because we do care. And while we support any people's right to resistance, we should not "support the Iraq resistance."

There is also a longer version of Shalom's essay, which has an interesting first two paragraphs.

A little over two years ago, anti-war demonstrations of unprecedented magnitude rocked the globe and the New York Times termed the anti-war movement "the world's second superpower." Unfortunately, no one could mistake the anti-war demonstrations that took place this spring for the "world's second superpower."
On some level this fall-off from February 2003 was inevitable. Opposition to war then was a no-brainer, while the current occupation raises tough questions: now that the United States government has devastated Iraqi society, what should be done? Some of those who argue that the U.S. needs to stay in Iraq are unreconstructed imperialists, but some make this argument out of a genuine sense of concern for the Iraqi people. But however sincere they may be, those who take this position are wrong in their belief that the occupation can help Iraqis, and the anti-war movement needs to explain to them why this is so.

It's good to see that Shalom acknowledges this. I'm not sure that Shalom that makes a convincing case, that is a case that would convince the liberal and left authors of A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq.
That's a dialogue that is insufficiently explored in the New Politics symposium. Still, I recommend reading both discussions.